M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).----Mohammad Saleem Akbar impugns the order dated 31- 7-1979 made by the Principal of the College of Dentistry (respondent No. 1) whereby the appellant was compulsorily retired from service with effect from the same day on charges of misconduct. A representation/review petition made to the Secretary, Health Department (respondent No. 2) was rejected on 9-2-1980.
2. The order of retirement, made under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 is assailed on the grounds that respondent No. 1 was not the competent authority and authorised Officer but was rather the appellate authority and that the authorisation obtained by respondent No. 1 to act as authority and Authorised Officer was not proper.
3. The parties were heard. Apart from the merits of the matter, the appellant based his objections to the impugned order on the fact that according to the Delegation of Powers Rules of the College it was the "officer next below" and not the Principal himself who could act as the authority and "the Authorised Officer" under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. Respondent No. 1 as Principal had harboured malice towards the appellant because the appellant had in writing thrown light on his misdeeds as Principal of the Institution and thus the whole proceedings were grounded on mala fide. Since the Authorised Officer and the authority were themselves the complainant and had initiated proceedings against the appellant, therefore, they were disqualified and in fact were unwilling to act as such and therefore respondent No. 1 obtained the authorisation from the Government who authorised the respondent No. 1 to take the proceedings against the appellant.
4. The case hinges on the point whether respondent No. 1's action was permissible under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, or not. Under sec--tion 2(c) of the said Rules, any officer can be designated as "authorised Officer" in respect of enquiry/action proposed against a civil servant.
Whatever the reasons which impelled respondent No. 1 to want to function as authorised officer himself there is no doubt that Government did authorise him in this behalf. The appellant has questioned the validity of the whole proceeding against him but after hearing him at length we do not find that respondent No. 1 acted beyond his jurisdiction or that the proceedings, at any stage, militated against the requirements of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. We cannot, therefore, see our way to agreeing with the appellant's contention in this regard. On merits too we do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings of the departmental authority. The appellant also failed to make out any base of mala fide.
In view of the conclusion above the appeal is dismissed in limine.