' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- The brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner by the respondents on the charges that the petitioner issued 606 appoint orders of the District cadre posts (EST, SVT, OT, AM etc.) over and above the recommendations of the DRC and he also appointed many class-IV employees for which he was not appointing authority. The competent authority after completing the legal formalities awarded major penalty of reduction of two stages in the time scale of his existence basic pay scale in terms of rule 41(b)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 vide order, dated 4-8-2001. Petitioner submitted representation before the Chief Minister which was rejected, vide order, dated 22-4-2004, Petitioner being aggrieved filed Appeal No,1225 of 2004 in the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. The Punjab Service Tribunal converted the penalty of reduction of two stages in the time scale to minor penalty of withholding of one increment for two years by accepting the appeal partly vide impugned judgment dated 17-8-2004/23-8-2004. Hence the present petition.
2. The petitioner appearing in person submits that he had intimated vide letter dated 1-10-1995 to the Director of Elementary Education, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala that the fresh recruitment against the various District cadre posts in Narowal District under the instructions and pressure of District Recruitment Committee/Deputy Commissioner, Narowal, were being carried out which was not covered under the existing Recruitment Committee ignoring the merit/prescribed qualification in certain cases/categories. The Directors of Secondary Education, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala directed the petitioner vide Letter dated 27-12-1995 that no comprehensive efforts were made for his end to fill the vacant posts duly recommended by the local representatives. In view of aforesaid circumstances the petitioner had appointed only two (Cate-keepers) Chowkidars on 4-1-1996 which was subsequently cancelled by him vide order, dated 7-3-1996. The aforesaid Chowkidars being aggrieved filed Constitution Petition No,4189 of 1996 which was accepted by the learned High Court vide order, dated 9-9-1996. He further urges that Mr. Safdar Ali and Muhammad Akram the aforesaid Chowkidars were appointed by the Recruitment Committee in its meeting held on 26-10- 1995 and appointment letter was issued to them on 4-1-1996 after the approval of the Selection Committee/District Recruitment Committee. He further submits that the Inquiry Officer had given findings in favour of the petitioner but in spite of that the respondent had imposed the penalty and this fact was not considered by the learned Service Tribunal in its true perspective. He further urges that charge No,1 was not proved whereas charge No,2 was proved to the extent of appointment of two Chowkidars.
3. The learned Law Officer submits that all the Tribunals below had given findings of fact against the petitioner after re-examination of record and found him guilty. Even otherwise the petitioner had failed to bring his case within the parameters prescribed in Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
4. We have given our due consideration to the contention of the petitioner and the learned Law Officer and perused the record. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the relevant letters, minutes of the meeting of the Recruitment Committee, appointment letter, report of the Inquiry Officer and relevant part of the impugned judgment to resolve the controversy between the parties:- Letter No .4501 /EI. (M), dated 1-10-1995 "I have the honour to inform your goodself that fresh recruitment against various District Cadre posts in Narowal District under the instructions and pressure of the Chairman District Recruitment Committee/Deputy Commissioner, Narowal are being carried out which are not covered according to the existing Recruitment Policy i,e, ignoring the merit/prescribed -qualifications in certain cases/categories."
Letter No,EI/M/DRC/5 331M, dated 24-12-1995 "I am directed to inform you that after analyzing the recruitment process, it has been observed that no comprehensive efforts are made from your end to fill the vacant posts duly recommended by the local representatives.
' The Authority has shown his concern and asks me to direct you to pay personal attention for completion of this process. The completion report in all respect shall highly be appreciated before 28-12-1995" {{TABLE}} Minutes of Meeting held on 26-10-1995 "According to the scheduled programme the (male) candidates for Oriental Teacher were interviewed as per list attached (Annexure "A"). The D.R.C., Narowal approved the following candidates for appointment as Class-IV Employees ' Sr. No, Name with parentage Name, address 1 Mr. Sardar Ali son of Resident of Daud.
Muhammad Tufail
2. Mr. Muhammad Akram Resident of Maloke. son of M. Bashir Appointment Letter No,758/EI(M), dated 4-1-1996 "Upon the approval, of the Selection Committee/District Recruitment Committee, Narowal (notified by the Government of Punjab SGA&I Deptt, vide No,SGR-XII-2/1/94, dated 8-2-1995 the following candidates are hereby appointed as Class-IV...
(1) Mr. Safdar Ali son of Muhammad Tufail resident of Daud. Posted at G.H.S. Against vacant post.
(2) Mr. Muhammad Akram son of Muhammad Bashir resident of Malhoke posted at G.G.H.S. Vice Mr. Muhammad Shafi Chowkidar retired from 31-12-1995."
Inquiry report "The defence version of Mr. Muhammad Khan Mohal is self-explanatory (File No,2 pages 207 to 233). The accused stated that the Department itself admitted that Kh. Muhammad Younas and Mr. Muhammad Anwar, Deputy DEO, Narowal/ Shakkargarh made appointments of 89 and 102, PTC '
Teachers respectively over and above the approval of the DRC for which the accused cannot be blamed. Whereas Syed Nazar Abbas Jaffari has produced the approval of the District Recruitment Committee in rebuttal to the charge levelled against him."
Impugned judgment "No doubt Rule 16.1 contained in Chapter XVI of the Civil Service Rules (Punjab) under Note-3 provides that higher authority in a Department may exercise the powers delegated to an authority subordinate to it. This provision of the rules would not come to the rescue of the appellant for the reason that appointments of two Chowkidars made on 4-1-1996 were rescinded on 7-3-1996 which order reads as under:- ' Appointment Order No,157-158/E.II(M&F), dated 4-1-1996 issued under political pressure are hereby cancelled/withdrawn as the post was already filled up.'
' This shows that the appellant did not act under Rule 16.1 of the rules (ibid), but under the orders of the Director Public Instructions (EE) Punjab, Lahore, dated 15-1-1995, otherwise he would not have cancelled the appointments made on 4-1-1996."
5. In case the aforesaid facts are put in juxtaposition, then it is crystal clear that the petitioner had acted in accordance with the law to point out the irregularities and political pressure of the local politicians in terms of law laid down by this Court in Zahid Akhtar's case PLD 1995 SC 530. The relevant observation is as under:-- "A reading of Rule 21(2) with Schedule V of the Rules of Business (ibid), makes it clear that the transfer of a Section Officer/Under Secretaries and other officers of the equivalent rank within the department is to be done by the Secretary of that Department. Rule 21 of the Rules of Business, which deals with power of posting, promotion and transfer of Government servants does not contemplate exercise of these powers by the minister. The normal period of posting of a Government servant at a station, according, to the above referred policy decision of the Government, is 3 years which has to be followed in the ordinary circumstances, unless for reasons of exigencies of services mentioned in the aforesaid policy of Government, a transfer before expiry of 3 years' period becomes necessary in the opinion of competent Authority. The transfer orders in the present case, therefore, could neither be justified on the plane of policy directive of Government referred to above, nor they were sustainable on the language of Rule 21(2) read with Schedule V of the Rules of Business, (ibid). We are in no doubt that if the transfer orders in the case before us would have been made in accordance with the policy directives of the Government referred to above and power was exercised by the competent Authority as contemplated by Rule 21(2) read with Schedule V of the Rules of Business, (ibid) there would have been no room for maneuvering by the officers affected by such transfer. The fact that the transfers were made in violation of policy directive of the Government, which has the status of a Rule and provisions of Rule 21(2) (bid) were not followed strictly, opened the door for the Government servant concerned to bring in outside influences to obtain the desired transfers. We are also sorry to note that the Secretary LG&RD, neither resisted these unethical and undesirable moves of his subordinates nor he pointed out to the Honourable Minister Incharge, that the transfer orders made by him from time to time in respect of various officers of his department were neither in conformity with the declared policy of Government nor these transfer orders conform to the provisions of Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Business, (ibid). It was the duty of the Secretary LG&RD to have pointed out to the Minister concerned the extent of his authority in such matter, besides bringing to his notice that such frequent transfer of a Government servants could neither be justified as the exigencies of service nor it could be described in the public interest. We are constrained to observe that such unconcerned and lukewarm attitude on the part of Head of a Government Department is not expected to promote discipline or efficiency in the department. On the contrary such attitude may have a demoralizing effect on his, subordinates encouraging them to seek intervention and favours of outside agencies, which may ultimately adversely affect the overall discipline and efficiency in the department. We, therefore, expect that the guidelines mentioned in the policy directives of the Government referred to above and the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules of Business, (ibid), will be kept in view by all concerned while dealing with the transfers of Government servants. The office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Government of Punjab for circulating it to all its departments, for further guidance. With these observations, this petition stands dismissed as not maintainable."
6. The learned Service Tribunal had decided the case in violation of law laid down by this Court in Zahid Akhtar's case (supra). It is a settled principle of law that the judgment of this Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution. It is observed with regrets that respondents allowed their authority to be misused by the M.N.A./M.P.A.
Who had no such powers whereas the petitioner refused to obey the direction of politicians as evident from the narrations of facts hereinabove. The Punjab Civil Servants Act or the rules made thereunder did not authorize M.N.A./M.P.A. To pass such-like orders for appointment of Chowkidar or any other posts. As mentioned above Director of Elementary Education, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala acted without lawful authority as it was a case of dictatorial misuse of powers and not independent discharge of function as depicted from letter, dated 27-12-1995 reproduced hereinabove. Such misuse of powers under the dictate of the public representatives has been held to be invalid in a number of judgments decided by the superior Courts of Pakistan and outside. In this regard reliance can be placed on the following judgments:---
(i) Ghulam Mohiuddin's case PLD 1964 SC 829; (ii) Amanullah Khan's case PLD 1990 SC 1092; (iii)
Abaidullah's case 1993 SCM R 1195; (iv) Gardhandas Bhangi's case AIR 1952 SC 100; (v) Oriun Paper Mills' case AIR 1970 SC 1498 and (vi) Scam Labour Union's case (1946) 2 All ER 201.
7. The dictum of Supreme Court of Pakistan as mentioned above is binding on every organ of the State by virtue of Article 189 of the Constitution. The above mentioned series of judgments reveal that the Honourable Supreme Court on each occasion has declared the actions of the authorities which are passed in violation of the law, Constitution and amounts to usurpation of authority of other functionaries. Nonobservance by the functionaries of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan is in violation of Article 189 of the Constitution. If all the prevailing circumstances i,e, the judgment of the Supreme Court, action of the authorities and attitude of public representatives are put in a juxtaposition, then it becomes crystal clear that the legislators and executive have refused to give due respect to the dictum of Supreme Court of Pakistan, which is not congenial and conducive for the existence of the country, running the State smoothly, mutual coordination, respect and understanding. This situation will create chaos. So, in a word it can be safely concluded that each organ must work within its limits prescribed by the Constitution and law. It is pertinent to mention here that Recruitment Committee under the influence of the local representative, Deputy Commissioner concerned and Director of Secondary Education, Gujranwala Division had 'acted in violation of the mandatory provisions of law and the law laid down by this Court whereas the petitioner had acted in accordance with the dictum laid down by this Court in Zahid Akhtar's case (supra) and other judgments mentioned above. This fact brings the case in the area that the petitioner is penalized to act in accordance with law but this fact was not considered by all the authorities below as well as the learned Service Tribunal. The scheme of our Constitution is based on Trichotomy as is held by this Court in Zia-ur-Rehman's case PLD 1973 SC 49. In the system of Trichotomy, the Judiciary has the right to interpret, the Legislator has right only to legislate and the Executive has to implement. The Trichotomy of powers which is already delicately balanced in the Constitution, cannot be disturbed as it grants powers to each organ to decide the matters in its allotted sphere. In fact awareness has been given to the world 1400 years ago by Almighty Allah in. The Holy Book of Qur'an in "Sura Rehman" warned the Humanbeing not to disturb balance in any sphere otherwise destruction is must. Articles 4 and 5(2) of the Constitution shall compel everybody to act in accordance with law as the law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements (see PLD 1958 SC 499, Ch. Zahoor Elahi's case PLD 1975 SC 383). Mian Muhammad Rashid former Advisor to the Chief Minister Punjab/ M.P.A. Directed the petitioner to issue appointment letter to two Chowkidars mentioned above. It is stated on our query that the said Advisor/M.P.A. Is behind the bars as the NAB Authorities had initiated proceedings against him qua his misdeeds by using his authority in violation of provisions of Constitution, Law and Rules. In this view of the matter we do not issue notice to him but it is pertinent to mention here that the law of nature has taken its own course as the said Advisor/M.P.A. Is facing trial on whose direction the petitioner had issued the appointment letter of the Chowkidars in question and had been facing agony of proceedings against him since long. This is a classic example to provide lesson that one must remain within its limits whenever he has been given authority and position so that after leaving the position, he shall not face any agony of facing trial or go behind the bars. This is well- known maxim that nobody learns lessons from history otherwise he would not commit the same mistake or misuse of the given authority.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is converted into appeal which is allowed.
The impugned judgment as well as the orders of the authorities are set aside.