M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).--The appellant in this case at the relevant time was working as junior Clerk (Typist) in the Type Branch of the Office of the Commissioner, Lahore Division. He assails before us the order dated 17-3-1976 of the Commissioner, Lahore Division, dismissing him from service and also the appellate order dated 16-6-1976 of Senior Member, Board of Revenue reducing punishment from dismissal to that of removal from service.
2. On 28-2-1976 a notice was served upon the appellant alleging that he had disobeyed the directions given by the Superintendent (General) and had refused to type out an important report by the E. A. C. (R), Lahore which was to be submitted to the Commissioner by 10 a.m. That very day.
The appellant was called upon to explain his conduct `today' as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 for the aforesaid default.
The appellant avers that he received the aforesaid notice at the close of office time and the next day being Sunday, he submitted his reply on Monday, the Ist of March 1976. He denied the alleged incident and stated that on the said date he was called by the Superintendent but when he found two other clerks standing beside him he thought that the work was allotted to these two clerks, so he left the room and started his usual routine work. The appellant was thereafter served with two orders of suspension with immediate effect, both dated 28-2-1976; one was signed by the Assistant to Commissioner (G), by order of the Commissioner, Lahore Division while the other order which was identical in terms was signed by the Commissioner himself. While the first order appears to have been endorsed to the A.-G., Punjab, the appellant and two other co-accused officials on 1-3- 1976, the latter order bears endorsement to the same quarters but dated 3-3-1976. The above orders were followed by a show-cause notice dated 3-3-1976 signed by the Commissioner which raised two charges against the appellant: first one being the same charge of disobedience as raised in the earlier notice of 28-2-1976 narrated above, while the second charge was for the failure of appellant to submit his explanation on 28th February 1976 as required in the aforeraid notice of the same date. The appellant was informed that it was proposed to proceed against him under clause 6(3) of rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975, and was required to show cause in writing within days of receipt of the show-cause notice `as to why any or more of the major penalties provided in rule a(1)(b) of the (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, be not imposed on him. The apfellant again submitted a brief reply to the show-cause notice in which be reiterated his previous position regarding the first charge. Regarding second charge he pleaded that as he was about to frame his reply en 28-2-1976 at 2.00 p.m.. He was called by his officer to tyre out some urgent work in Urdu which he was obliged to do as lie was the only Urdu Typist available in the office, with the result that he was not able to tender his explanation on the same day but however on the next working day he did promptly submit his reply. The explanation of the appellant failed to convince the Commissioner so that by the impugned order dated 17-3-1976 he dismissed him from service with the farther stipulation that he would get no pay during the period of his suspension beyond the subsistence allowance admissible to him under the rules. Appellant's appeal against the aforesaid order to the Senior Member, Board of Revenue resulted in reduction of punishment from dismissal to that of removal from service.
3. The appellant vehemently argues in terms of rule 5 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, that if in the opinion of the `Authority' there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellant the said authority should have directed the `Authorised Officer' to proceed against the appellant. Contrary to these provisions it is argued that the Commissioner has arrogated to himself the functions of the 'Authority' as well as the `Authorised Officer' so that the proceedings against the appellant by one and the same authority acting as the competent authority and the Authorised Officer' have caused him prejudice and are illegal and of no effect. It has been pointed out to the appellant that in terms of rule 2'(11 read with sub-clause (3) of the same rule, the Commissioner is the `Authority' as well as the `Authorised Officer' in the case of appellant inasmuch as' according to the relevant Delegation of Powers Rules, the Commissioner has been designated both as the authority competent to award major as well as minor punishment to the appellant. Resultantly we do not find any force in the argument of the appellant that in such a case the Commissioner was obliged to designate some other authority as the `Authorised Officer' to proceed against the appellant. No rule or law has been cited to support this contention. This plea of the appellant is, therefore, rejected. Likewise, we also do not find any substance in the arguments of the appellant that e no conscious order dispensing with the regular departmental enquiry against the. Appellant was passed by the competent authority. The relevant rule which authorises the `Authorised Officer' to dispense with the enquiry to be conducted through Enquiry Officer or Enquiry Committee is rule 6(3) of the (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 and the show-cause notice dated 3-3-1976 precisely refers to the same rule and clause in its opening part, and the charges against the appellant are also expressly served on the appellant as required by clause (a) of rule 6(3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Re sultantly this plea of the appellant is also rejected.
4. The appellant was also heard in person by the Commissioner before passing the impugned order and the appellant has not shown to us that he had asked in writing for any opportunity to produce any record or witnesses in his defence. The charge being simple one, apparently no elaborate evidence was required, and to our mind the requirement of giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause as envisaged by rule 6(3) (b) and rule 8 of the (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, were adequately met.
We do not find any ground for interfering with the impugned order and the appeal is accordingly rejected with no orders as to costs.