Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, J.--Syed Talib Hussain, a Lecturer in University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi has been granted leave to appeal from the judgment dated 30.10.2002 of Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore whereby, his dismissal from service dated 12.6.1997, was maintained and his appeal thereagainst stood dismissed.
2. The appellant was proceeded against under Section 2 (1)(b) of the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad (Efficiency and Discipline) Statutes 1975 as adopted by the University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi on the following charges: "Whereas Syed Talib Hussain was traveling on Passport No. H 407334 dated 14.3.1992 and No.0 630085 dated 3-12-1996, both issued without an N.O.C. from his employer, the University of Arid Agriculture, Ravyalpindi, and both carrying wrong profession as "Labour".
'Whereas Syed Talib Hussain obtained a Work Visa as Labour from the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in" Islamabad on 18.3.1992 and later obtained a clearance from the Protectorate of Immigration, Rawalpindi,- on 19.3.1992 for direct employment in Saudi Arabia as Labour by providing an affidavit, where he concealed his employment with the University.
'Whereas Syed Talib Hussain has frequently traveled to Saudi Arabia between 18.3.1992 to 31.12.1996 in connection with his employment as Labour in Saudi Arabia and has obtained as many as eleven exit/re-entry visas and three "aquamas" of two years duration each from the concerned authorities in Saudi Arabia.
'Whereas all the journeys to Saudi Arabia between 18.3.1992 to 31.12.1992 have been performed without N.O.Cs. from his employer and even without leave Ex-Pakistan."
3. The appellant did not file any reply to the charges or to show-cause notice dated 16.4.1997 on the plea that he originally being a civil servant under Agriculture department of Punjab Government has applied to the Government for his repatriation and that the authorities of the University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi had no jurisdiction to proceed against him. The authority did not concede to his stance, proceeded against him and ultimately the appellant was dismissed from service.
4. As a matter of fact the appellant had filed two applications dated 23.4.1997, one to the Government of Punjab and the other to the Vice-Chancellor University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi for his repatriation to his original department. His such prayer/request was rejected by the Government vide reply dated 16.5.1997. Before us, the appellant maintains that notwithstanding any reply etcetera or any stance taken by the Government, he was never an employee of University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi. That he belonged to the Agriculture department of Government of Punjab having initially been appointed as Lecturer in Barani Agriculture College, Rawalpindi. That the integration of Barani Agriculture College, Rawalpindi, with the University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi would not automatically change his status of being a civil servant.
5. It is an admitted fact that Barani Agriculture College Rawalpindi stood integrated with the University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi, which integration was announced under Section 6 of the University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi Act, 1995. For facility of reference, the section is reproduced:-- "6. Integration of research Institute with the University.--(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law, notification, contract, agreement or instrument, Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, integrate with the University any educational or research institution situated anywhere in the Punjab:--
(2) On the publication of a notification under sub-section (1)-- (a)all rights, properties, assets and liabilities vested in or undertaken by such educational institution shall retrospectively become the rights, properties, assets and liabilities of the University; and (b)all persons serving in connection with the affairs of such educational institution in any capacity shall stand transferred for service under the University on such terms and conditions as the Government, in consultation with the University may determine: Provided that such terms and conditions shall not be less favourable than those admissible to them immediately before their transfer to the University: Provided further that if any such person is a Government servant on deputation to the institution, he shall not be transferred for service to the University without his consent in writing."
6. A close perusal of the section aforesaid would indicate that the Government had complete authority under Section 6(1) of Act, V of 1995 to announce the integration with the University of any educational or research institute situated anywhere in the Punjab. Such Authority is exercised by the Government under an Act of the legislature. What would be the fate of the employees of such integrated educational or research institution, is clarified by sub-clause (b) sub-section 2 of Section 6. It clearly laid down in unambiguous terms that all such persons belonging to such educational institution, in any capacity, shall stand transferred for service under the University on such terms and conditions as the Government, in consultation with the University, may determine.
There cannot be two opinions about the notion that the services of the appellant under Section 6(2)(b) stood transferred absolutely to the University vide notification dated 2.4.1996 issued under the authority of the Governor of Punjab.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant wanted to take shelter under proviso II to Section 6 supra but that relates to a servant on deputation to the institution whose services could not be transferred to the University. The appellant admittedly has never been a deputationist either to Barani Agriculture College Rawalpindi or to the University. His services, therefore, stood permanently transferred to the University under notification dated 2.4.1996. The University authorities thus were fully competent to proceed against him under the relevant Efficiency and Discipline laws. So far as the merits of the proceedings are concerned, the appellant has no case at all because he had failed even to submit a reply to the show-cause notice or statement of allegations. Learned counsel for the appellant conceded that, but for the question of jurisdiction raised by him, he had no case on merits.
8. The appellant stood transferred to the University through notification of integration on 2.4.1996 issued under Section 6 of Act V, 1995. He never challenged such notification of integration nor the vires of Section 6 of the Act and hence is precluded from disputing the effect and consequences thereof. He applied for his repatriation through application dated 23.4.1997 which was rejected on 16.5.1997. Till this date, he has not challenged even such refusal of the Government of Punjab to repatriate him to the Agriculture department. It is too late in the day for the appellant to wriggle out from the implications of Section 6 of the Act. The whole affair is supposed to be within his knowledge from 2.4.1996. Seen from any angle, the appellant was an employee of the University and was lawfully proceeded against by the University authorities, which proceedings, he failed to contest on merit. There being no force in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed.