SHAH ABDUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN)-The appellant herein, Mr. S. M. Tahseen Taqvi who was employed as Accountant, Census Organisation in the Interior Division, Karachi, was served with a charge-sheet dated 26th January, 1973 by Brig. Abdul Latif, Census Commissioner and Ex Officio Joint Secretary. He was directed to submit his written defence to Mr. M.A. Khadim, Assistant Census Commissioner, Karachi who was appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct the proceedings. The statement of allegations was also appended to the charge-sheet. As a result of enquiry the appel- -lant was found guilty of the charge of mis-conduct and was removed form service by Brig. Abdul Latif himself by order dated 5th December, 1973. From this order Mr. S. M. Tahseem Taqvi preferred an appeal the result of, which was communicated to him by Brig. Abdul Latif vide his letter dated 27th April, 1974, stating therein that the Additional Secretary, Interior Division to whom the appeal was addressed has rejected his appeal. From this order the appellant has come up in appeal before us under section 4 of the Service 'Tribunals Act 1973.
2. The appeal can be disposed of on the short ground that the proceedings against the appellant have been taken by the officer concerned without proper jurisdiction. The Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 in rule 5 (2) read with rule 6 provide that the charge sheet together with the statement of allegations shall be framed and communicated by the authorised officer. It is further provided in sub-rule (2) of rule 5 that a decision to hold enquiry shall be made by the authorised officer. Sub-rule (4) of rule 5 is to the effect that on the report of the Enquiry Officer the authorised officer shall determine if the charge has been proved and if he considers the case to be of minor penalty he shall pass the order accordingly but if the case calls for a major penalty the case shall be forwarded to the authority which shall pass such order as it may deem proper.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended gnat Census Commissioner at the relevant time was neither ''authorised officer" nor the "authority" and in consequence he could neither serve the charge---sheet on the appellant nor ire could impose the major penalty or for that matter any penalty on the appellant. It was specifically pointed out that the charge sheet was served on 8th October, 1973. At that time under Clause (2) of rule 2 of the Government Servants (Efficiency anal Discipline) 'Rules, 1973, the President had not designated any person to exercise the power of authority nor under clause (3) any person was authorised to perform the functions of an authorised officer. It is obvious that before the delegation of power under clause (2) and clause (3) of rule 2 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 the President himself was the authorised officer and the authority in case of civil servants and it was for the first tune on 7th November, 1973 that the powers of authority of authorised officer were delegated. On 8th October, 1973 when delegation under S. R. O. 1562 (1/73), dated 7th November, 1973 had not been made to any person the powers of the authorised officer and the authority could not be exercised except by the President himself. It was after the 7th November, 1973; that the powers were delegated. The charge-sheet served on the appellant on 8th October, 1973 was, therefore, without jurisdiction and as such was illegal and un-authorised and all the subsequent proceedings based therein are nullity. It may also be pointed out that even in the notification the Census Commissioner who was only an Ex Officio Joint Secretary could perform the function of authorised officer and not of authority which alone can impose the major penalty of removal from service.
4. It is not clear whether even Notification of 7th November 1973 was applicable in the case of the appellant because of subsequent order of 10th May, 1974. For the Census' Organization, the Census Commis--sioner was for the first time designated as authorised officer and the Secretary Grade- 22 was designated as the authority. If the Notification of 7th November, 1973, is not taken into consideration then the order of 10th May, 1974 would be applicable which too was passed long after the charge-sheet had been served on the appellant on 8th October, 1973 which led to his removal from service. In either case namely the Notification of 7th November, 1973 or of 10th May, 1974 being later in time than the date of charge sheet served by the Census Commissioner on 8th October 1973 the said charge sheet wars without jurisdiction and as already stated all the subsequent proceedings based thereon are nullity having no force in law. The order of removal was, therefore, without jurisdiction which cannot be sustained.
5. We accept this appear for the reason as stated above and suet aside the order of removal of the appellant and direct his re-instatement from the date he was first suspended from service with all the consequential benefits.