' JAWAD-UL-HASSAN, DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE/MEMBER-Ill. The appellant in the above- captioned service appeal called in question the impugned order dated 12.4.2012 and 3.12.2011 passed by the respondents No, 1 and 2 respectively and requested for a direction qua his reinstatement in service. To broach the subject the following intrinsic facts and circumstances are mentioned:---
2. The appellant joined Govt. Service as an Accountant in BS-15 in the year 1990 and was posted in the office of D. G. Project Management Unit, Housing, Physical and Environment Planning Department. Vide a notification dated 21.5.1995 issued by Secretary Housing, Physical and Environment Planning Department, the Governor of the Punjab in view of his authority under Section 7(xvi) of the Punjab. Development of Cities Act, 1976 established an agency under the name and style of Kasur Tanneries Waste Management Agency. The Deputy Commissioner, Kasur in addition to other members of the agency was Ex-Officio Managing Director. Whereafter Secretary HP & EP Department issued another notification on 28.8.1995 in terms of powers conferred by Section 8 of the Punjab Developments of Cities Act, 1976 whereby the Managing Director Tanneries Waste Management Agency was to exercise the powers and functions in a similar way as was being exercised under Managing Director WASA Faisalabad development authority and Dy.
Managing Director WASA Faisalabad Development Authority administration respectively. It was added in the notification that all the technical powers shall be exercised by the Project Director of the Agency instead of Managing Director. - The Deputy Commissioner, as an Ex-Officio Managing Director of the agency advertised one post of 'Account Officer of BS-17 in newspapers. The appellant with previous departmental approval applied for the said post through proper channel.
On 15.2.1996 he was inducted in the service of Kasur Tanneries Pollution Control project (KTWMA) as AccOunts Officer in BS-17. The letter of offer No, Admn/KTWMA/83/96, dated 15.2.1996 has been placed on the' record according to which the tenure of the post was described as under:---
(a) The appointment will be temporary and likely to continue till the post exists.
(b) During the first six months of appointment you will remain on probation under the provision of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974.
' In the wake of afore-said appointment he was relieved from the office of Director General wet 29.2.1996 in order to join his new assignment in the office of Managing Director Kasur tanneries Waste Management Agency. What happened was that the then D.G. Katchi Abadies, ,Punjab through his letter dated 25.6.1997 adjured the Managing Director KDA (KTWMA) Kasur if the appellant is posted on deputation as Assistant Director Accounts in BS-17 in Directorate General, Katchi Abadies Punjab in accordance with the Recruitments Rules, 1993. The Director Finance on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner Kasur in pursuance of aforesaid letter sent an epistle vide memo. No, KTP/PR dated 20.9.1997 stating therein that his office had no objection if the appellant was posted and absorbed according to the deputation policy so that the office might be in a position to transfer/appoint another officer. As a result thereof the .Appellant Rana Maqbool Ahmad was posted as Assistant Director (Accounts) in BS-17 on deputation in Directorate General Katchi Abadi Punjab vide order dated 2.10.1997. On 11.10 1997 the appellant joined over there. D.G K&UI Punjab through his letter 10.10:1997 requested the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department for his absorption in borrowing organization on permanent basis as A.D. (Accounts) in BS-17. The Section Officer-III, Ghularn Hassan Sial of Local Government and Rural Development Department asked the D.G. Katchi Abadi about supplying the information of the appellant. The same was supplied by the Director Admn. M&E on behalf of the Director General. Whereafter the Secretary Local Government Punjab Mr. Muhammad Hamayun Farshori absorbed the appellant permanently as Assistant Director Accounts in BS-17 in the Directorate General of Katchi Abadies and Urban Development Punjab, Lahore against the post held by him.
' Over here he was assigned the work of post of. Accounts Officer, Lahore Urban Transport Project till further orders in addition to his own duties. By virtue of devolution under Section 52 of the Punjab Local Govt. Ordinance, 2001 the functions, administration and financial managements of the different departments including LG & RD Department were entrusted to Tehsil Municipal Administration alongwith the employees 'working in these offices. Whereafter the appellant was being transferred from one post to another. It was averred in the appeal .That Khawaja Ahmad Hassan resigned from his office of Town Nazim on account of political rivalry with Mr. Tariq Sana Bajwa. After election the said Tariq Sana Bajwa was elected as Town Nazim Data Gunj Bakhsh Town, Lahore who while realizing the competence of the appellant, got him posted as Town Officer (Regulations) Data Gunj Bakhsh Town on 22.10.2005. In the year 2005-06 the salary of the appellant was stopped at the instance of Tariq Zaman Khan (Director Administration) and Ch. Muhammad Siddique (Dy... Secretary) of D.G. Katchi Abadi Punjab and Dy. Secretary in the office of Secretary Local Govt. Punjab but due to the intervention of D.G. Katchi Abadi his salary was released. The appellant was repatriated to the office of D.C. Katchi Abadies on 7.9.2006 over there the aforesaid c officers started a campaign against him and his salary was again stopped w.e.f, 7.9.2006. The then D.G. Katchi Abadies refused to accept the services of the appellant on 11.9.2006 by virtue of availability of A.D. Accounts and non-availability of the post therefore, the Secretary Local Govt.
Vide order dated 12.9.2006 directed the appellant to go back to his parent department i.e, Kasur Tanneries Waste Management Agency. The appellant treated this order illegal, and tainted with malice. The appellant submitted his joining report in the office of Zila Nazim Kasur but the same was not accepted which urged him to report back on 20.9.2006 to the office of Secretary Local Govt. In order to secure an appropriate order. The Dy. Secretary in office of Secretary Local Govt.
Punjab. Ch. Muhammad Siddique and Director Administration Tariq Zaman Khan of the office of D.G. Katchi Abadies Punjab turned hostile towards the appellant, they in furtherance of their common design lodged a source report under Sections 420/468/471, PPC read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and got registered a criminal case bearing F.I.R. No, 5/2006 in which the appellant was arrested and granted bail by the Court of learned Special Judge Anti- Corruption, Lahore vide order dated 4.12.2006. When the appellant was on bail he was posted on Town Officer (Regulations) Aziz Town Municipal 'Committee on 3.7.2008 by the order of the Secretary, Local Government and Community Development Department/ respondent No, 2 but on the same time in supersession of the aforesaid order the appellant was posted on the same date in Town Municipal Administration Nishtar Town, Lahore as per order of the Secretary Local Govt.
Dated 5.7.2008. After few days on 16.7.2008 the appellant was again transferred to the office of TMA Data Gunj Bakhsh Town, Lahore. Over there the appellant joined the post on 16.7.2008 and remained working until 16.5.2009.
3. Meanwhile in the month of November, 2008 the Town Nazim, Tariq Sana Bajwa sent a complaint against the appellant to Secretary Local Govt. Punjab. In an exercise, Muhammad Rizwan Taqi the then D.G. Katchi Abadi Pb. Vide his epistle dated 8.10.2008 after thrashing out the service record of the appellant reported in the following manner:--- ' "The naked eye examination of all the above-referred documents reveals that the matter regarding appointment and absorption of Rana Maqbool Ahmad against different -posts during the last about two . Decades is spread over in different govt. Offices including the A.G. Punjab from where he was drawing his salary. Thus it is unbelievable that :all the documents are forged, rather 'there are reasons to believe that the same are genuine.
' However, I personally feel that for the present no action is required and papers may be shelved.
The officer may be allowed to continue and his performance may be kept under observation for at least 90 days."
'It was averred in the appeal that the work and conduct of the appellant was highly appreciated by the Additional Secretary Local Govt. And C.D. Department and D.C.O., City District Government. The appellant filed writ petition No, 1868/2008 feeling aggrieved over non-payment of his salary which was disposed of vide order dated 6.9.2008 in which the following directions were issued: "3. Complicated questions of fact are involved in this writ petition, which cannot be ascertained in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner may, however; approach appropriate forum. Application dated 6.9.2008 of the petitioner for payment of his salaries, is pending before the respondent No, 1; Who has undertaken that he will look into the grievance of the petitioner and after a thorough probe will redress the same, if the grievance is found genuine. While deciding this, application, respondent No, 1 will pass a speaking order with, proper reasoning. He will decide the pending application within a period of one month, so that if the petitioner is found eligible, for salaries he may not be deprived of his valuable rights. Disposed of.
4. The respondent No, 2/Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Community Development Department during the exercise of deciding the application of the appellant dated 6.9.2008 regarding the release of salaries examined the record vide order dated 10.4.2009 found no favour for the payment of salaries and directed regular inquiry regarding forged application submitted by him. This refusal led the appellant to file service appeal before this Tribunal which is pending adjudication. Meanwhile, respondent No, 2 issued the following show-cause notice on 23.6.2009:- SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ' Whereas your absorption in the Directorate General, Katchi Abadies and Urban Improvement, Punjab, LG and CD Department from Kasur Tanneries Waste Management Agency as Assistant Director (Accounts) BS-17 is illegal on the following grounds:--- ' You were posted as Accounts Officer (BS-17) in the Project namely Kasur Tanneries Waste Management Agency directly on the temporary basis as is evident from the appointment letter dated 15.2.1996 issued to you with the following terms and conditions to the extent of tenure of the post:
(a) The appointment will be temporary and likely to continue till the post exists.
(b) During the first six months of appointment you will remain on probation under the provision of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions) Rules, 1974.
' After the completion of the project, all the employees were terminated whereas you maliciously managed your posting in the Directorate General, Katchi Abadies and Urban Improvement, Punjab on deputation w.e.f, 14.10.1997 vide order dated 2.10.1997 by concealing the fact that you were not a regular Government employee and cannot go on deputation to any Government Department.
' That the Deputy Secretary (Admn) Government of the Punjab, Environment Protection Department vide letter dated 20.11.2001 declared the said project (KTWMA) as private entity and rejected cases for regularization of all staff of KTWMA and considered the staff as surplus.
' You remained posted in the Directorate General, KA&UI, Punjab without having any extension in your deputation period rather you got yourself absorbed in the Directorate General, KA&UI, Punjab illegally and also against the Service Recruitment Rules, 1993 of Directorate General, KA&UI, Punjab and drew salaries illegally, which tantamount to misconduct.
' The Local Government and Rural Development, Directorate General Katchi Abadies, Recruitment Rules, 1993 clearly state that the filling of the post of Assistant Director (Accounts) is possible through posting from other departments only.
' There are no orders whereby any relaxation has been approved/sanctioned by the Competent Authority for your absorption. Therefore, your absorption in D.G K.As. Itself is illegal and unlawful.
Your deputation seems to have been manoeuvred and manipulated against the rules and policy of the Government.
'The letter of DCO, Kasur bearing No, HC(G)2006/2082, dated 7.10.2006 addressed to the ACE, Punjab also clearly states that you proceeded on self-fabricated deputation in the D.G KA&UI Punjab. There is no record of your lien being maintained in the KTWMA Kasur and you male fidely took over all your personal official record with you.
2. And whereas there are sufficient grounds and documentary evidence to proceed against you under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006.
' The respondent No, 2 while issuing the above-said show-cause proceeded himself and dispended with the regular inquiry keeping in view the documentary evidence on record. The appellant submitted reply to the show-cause notice on 17.8.2009 wherein he refuted all the allegations.
Consequent upon respondent No, 2/the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Community Development Department dismissed the appellant on 30.09.2009 under the provisions of the PEEDA Act, 2006. The departmental appeal of the appellant also remained unsuccessful and was dismissed by the respondent No, 1/ Chief Secretary Punjab.
5. Both, dismissal as well as appellate orders were called in question by way of service appeal No, 1168/2010 before this Tribunal. The said appeal was decided on 6.4.2011. The matter was remanded for initiation of regular inquiry within 90 days.
6. As a result of remanding of the case by this Tribunal the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Community Development Department issued a fresh order dated 15.4.2011 for holding a regular inquiry into the matter of illegal and unlawful deputation and absorption in the Directorate General of KA&UI, Punjab. Mr. Maqsood Ahmed Lack Special Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Community Development Department was appointed as inquiry officer to proceed against the accused appellant and to conduct inquiry under the PEEDA Act, 2006 into the charges embodied in the said order. The appellant contested the said inquiry and reply of charges was filed by him wherein he illuminated that the charges contained in the order under reference have been changed from previous one as mentioned in the earlier show-cause notice. He denied the allegation No, 1, whereas the allegation at serial No, 2 was also denied while stating that the charge was baseless, levelled on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He specifically mentioned that there was no question of forging any document.
Likewise, he also denied the charges/allegations 4, 5 and 6. It appears that the inquiry officer was substituted and Mr. Muhammad Shehryar Sultan the D.G., LG and CD was appointed as inquiry officer who formulated his inquiry report and recommended therein the major penalty of dismissal from service under the provisions of Section 4(b)(vi) of PEEDA Act, 2006. On 05.10.2011 show-cause notice of personal hearing was issued and delivered to the appellant with the direction to appear before the respondent No, 2 Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Community Development Department for personal hearing.
' Consequently, the respondent No, 2 in the capacity of competent authority imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service upon the appellant vide impugned order dated 13.12.2011. The departmental appeal of the appellant was not succeeded as Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab dismissed his departmental appeal vide order dated 31.3.2012, hence this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant projected the arguments to the effect that subject show- cause notice dated 23.6.2009 was in excess of scope as was prescribed by the competent authority. He added that when the PST remanded the.Case back to the authority for fresh decision, the scope of inquiry was limited to the extent of allegations contained in the first show-cause notice. He added that the competent authority violated the direction of the PST whilst making certain addition and alterations in the charge-sheet issued after remand. He maintained that the PST vide order dated 6.4.2011 when reinstated the appellant fixed a period of 90 days for completion of the regular inquiry. That stipulated period expired on 5.7.2011 during which the regular inquiry was not completed therefore, the proceedings conducted by the inquiry officer are void and without authority. He added that after the stipulated period the inquiry officer held ex parte inquiry and recommended dismissal from service resulting in issuance of show-cause notice dated 5.10.2011 without jurisdiction. He added that the appellant submitted reply to the show-cause notice but the same was not considered by the authority and dismissed the appellant in ex parte manner vide impugned order dated 13.12.2012. It was argued that the status of Kasur Tanneries Waste Monument after the deputation of the appellant rendered irrelevant therefore according to him the departmental authorities fell in error in this respect. He stated that there was no irregularity or violation in sending the appellant on deputation and subsequent absorption in the office of D.G.
Katchi Abadies. He stated that such irregularity as being stressed by the respondents department may be committed by the competent authority for which the appellant cannot be blamed. He strengthened his arguments by referring to 2002 SCMR 1034, 1996 SCMR 413 and 2008 SCMR 508.
According to him the appellant, in due course of law, was transferred on deputation and subsequently absorbed in D.G. Katchi Abadies. The said act was admitted by the respondents authority in comments submitted before the honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore. He also referred to the recommendations of D.G. Katchi Abadi dated 8.2.2008 wherein he opined "thus it is unbelievable that all the documents are forged rather there are reasons to believe that the same are genuine. He stated that the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself and most of the documents were not supplied to him inspite of his demand raised during the course of departmental proceedings. He referred to the salary slips issued by the ADGP for the month of March, 1993, last pay certificate issued by the District Accounts Officer Kasur, salary slips issued by the AGP for the month of Sept., 1998, NTS number, and other documents. He stated that the appellant was victimized on account of the political authority who were annoyed with him for his honesty and dignity therefore, the appellant was dismissed from service illegally, against the facts and law by the respondent department. He added that there was no misconduct or inefficiency on part of the appellant for which he was held responsible. In this context he projected the innocence of the appellant vehemently and claimed for setting aside the impugned orders while asking for acceptance of the appeal.
8. Learned District Attorney assisted by the Departmental Representatives vehemently contested the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It was maintained that Kasur Development Authority was established under Section 4 of the Development City Act. 1974 vide notification dated 31.7.1994 whereas Kasur Tanneries Waste Management Agency was established under the said authority on 21.5.1995 in pursuance of order of Secretary Housing Physical Planning and Environmental Planning. The said agency was created in order to undertake the foreign added projected. The appellant was inducted in the said project and he was not regular employee or civil- servant. All the recruitments including the appellant was restricted to the agency, The said agency was not department of the government, therefore, the appellant being non civil servant was illegally unlawfully transferred on deputation from agency to the office of the D.G. Katchi Abadies, It was vehemently argued that on behalf of the department the appellant successfully mentioned his deputation and absorption in violation of rules and regulations and kept on taking advantages out of his wilful and wrong doing. It was projected that a full-fledged inquiry was conducted and fair chance was given to the appellant to defend the allegations. No law exists in support of the version of the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned DA went on asking for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Arguments heard and record perused.
10. First of all we intend to ponder over the status of the employees of Kasur Development authority and the employees of Kasur Tanneries Waste Management Agency and project established under the said agency. There is no denying the fact that the genesis of Kasur Development Authority took place on 31.7.1994, the Governor of the Punjab in exercise of his powers under Section 4 of the Punjab Developments of Cities Act, 1974, issued a Notification No, SO(I&C(H&EP-7-1/94) Kasur. The said authority was established with the purpose to set up and administer the Kasur Tanneries Waste Management Agency with the object of constructions. Operations and maintenance of Tanneries Waste of the city. The simple glance on condition enumerated in the notification ibid depicts that said agency was just created only to meet a legal requirement for implementing the foreign aided project. It further goes to show that the recruitment of the staff was restricted to aid the agency only, required to be created under the proiect. The power of the Kasur Development Authority was specified inter alia it was elaborated that the agency will recruit the staff of Kasur Tanneries Waste Management Agency directing the D.C. Kasur to act as ex-officio Managing Director who in the said capacity issued a publication in the newspaper inviting the applications for different posts including the post for which the appellant was appointed. The contents and recital of said newspaper's advertisement manifestly declared that the applications were being invited to fill the temporary posts in Kasur Tanneries Pollution Control Project. The appellant applied for a post therein and was selected and appointed vide order dated 15.2.1996 by the D.C. Kasur. The relevant portion of the appointment letter is being reproduced below for ready reference.
Tenure of Post
(a) The appointment will be temporary and likely to continue till the post exists.
(b) During the first six months of appointment you will remain on probation under the provision of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions) of Service Rules, 1974.
11. Admittedly the appellant was appointed in the project and his services were required to regularize till the date the post exists. The advertisement, terms and conditions of his appointment letter evinces that the appellant was not appointed against a regular post sanctioned or approved by the Government of the Punjab. Section 2(f) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 defines the permanent post as the post sanctioned without limitation of time. Likewise sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Act, ibid places a bar for confirmation against a temporary post. It has been couched with the words that there will be no confirmation against any temporary post. In view of this, the appellant was not appointed against a permanent post sanctioned by the Government of the Punjab, therefore, he was not a civil servant. Another crucial question arises as to whether the said KWA was a government department or not. In this regard, Rules of Business of Government of the Punjab, 1974 can be referred. Clause (ix) of second notification of the above-said enunciates that a department means a self-contained administrative unit in the Secretariat responsible for conduct of the business of the government of the Punjab in distinguished and specific sphere and declared as such by the government. The schedule I attached with the Rules of Business prescribes the attached department, head of department and allocation of business. According to this schedule the item No, 16 Faisalabad Development Authority, Lahore Development Authority, Multan Development Authority, Government Trust Gujranwala, Murree Rawalpindi and Sargodha are autonomous body. In view of this, Kasur Development Authority is an autonomous body, under which the set up a project for control of tanneries waste of the city Kasur was established.
Argument of learned counsel for the appellant was that the appointment letter dated 15.2.1996 contained a clause as to the applicability of provision of the Punjab Government Civil Servants Act, 1974 and Conduct Rules which clarifies the status of the appellant as civil servant. We are not in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that mere mentioning of this fact in the appointment letter will give the appellant the status of a civil servant. The reason behind this is that clause 2(g) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 defines the department as i.e, the same meaning as in the Punjab Government Rules of Business, described hereinabove. Since the project under which the appellant was inducted was not a government department. We found that the KDA and KTWMA were not government department.
12. On 25.6.1997 the then Director General Katchi Abadies Punjab vide his letter adjured the Managing Director, KDA (KTWMA), Kasur for posting of the appellant as Assistant Director Accounts (BS-17) in the office of the D.G. Katchi on deputation in view of Recruitment Rules, 1993. Here, a question arises as to whether the D.G. Katchi Abadies, was lawfully authorized or justified or not, to ;commend the appellant himself for such a deputation. He has made G reference in his letter of Recruitment Rules 1993. According to which the Assistant Director Accounts (BS-17) could be appointed by posting from another department. We have already discussed iereinabove and found that KDA and KTWMA was not a department attached with the Government. So the recommendations by D.G. Katchi Abadi was unlawful and void ab initio. Record speaks that the then acting Secretary Local Government Department took the appellant from KTWMA on deputation and appointed him as Assistant Director (Accounts) vide his letter dated 261 0.1997. This act of acting Secretary was a sheer violation of the Deputation Policy in vogue for the reasons that the entire deputation policy was formulated and announced in respect of sending the civil servants to other departments, Authorities and local bodies. This deputation policy was announced on 9.21974 and the Government of the Punjab kept on amending the same from time to time. It was amended on 28.4.1974 in view of decision by the Government which speaks that sanction for lending the services of a civil servant, on deputation shall be granted by the appointing authority after clearance by the relevant promotion/selection board or committee. Such Promotion Selection board or committee will consider a panel of names of senior most officers proposed for consideration. The rule is that the name of the senior most officer would normally be approved. The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary Sindh and others (2014 PLC (CS) 82) at page 176 para 129 held as under:- ' "We can safely hold that no non-civil servant can be transferred and appointed in Sindh Government by way of deputation to any cadre."
13. The Section 2(1)(b) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 is analogous to Section 2(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. It was observed by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case supra that interpretation of Section 2(1)(b) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, does not confer powers to the government to grant status of civil servant to an employee of an autonomous body and non-civil servant nor does it authorize under the scheme of the constitution to transfer on deputation as civil servant from non- cadre post to a cadre post. In the case in hand the appellant was a non-civil servant and was serving in a project, was transferred by way of deputation and appointed on a post required to be filled by a civil servant from other government department therefore, we found that the initial act of deputation of the appellant was against the law and rules framed under Articles 240 and 242 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Such exercise by the acting Secretary Local Government and the appellant was violative of law and done with the sole purpose to bypass the rules for initial recruitment or by promotion required for the posting of Assistant Director Accounts in BS-17 in the office of the D.G. Katchi Abadies Punjab. No committee departmental promotion committee or such authority recommended the name of the appellant for such posting which if allowed, will amount to mockery of law on the subject.
14. The Secretary Local Government, namely, Muhammad Hamayun Farshori in sheer violation of law absorbed the appellant permanently as Assistant Director Accounts in BS-17 in the Directorate General, Katchi Abadies and urban development, Punjab, against the post held by him illegally, on deputation. The learned counsel for the appellant, could not substantiate this absorption by referring any law on the subject. We found that his permanent absorption was also void.
15. The careful scrutiny of the record revealed that the. Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department vide his order dated 15.9.2006 repatriated and transferred him to his parent department i.e, KTWMA but strange enough after two years i.e, 3.7.2008 while treating him as awaiting posting, the Secretary Local Government posted him as Town Officer (Revenue) TMA Aziz Bhatti Town against a vacant post. This all shows the appellant's skill to manoeuver the affairs in the government departments. Nothing is available on record as to how he was again taken back from his parent institution. This leads to an inference against the appellant about the allegations levelled against him.
16. We are not in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the Secretary Local Government and departmental authorities etc. Were stopped by their conduct from dismissing the appellant from service as they themselves appointed through absorption and deputation the appellant into service. In this regard learned counsel for the appellant relied upon 2008 SCMR 598 as the bare facts in this case are quite different because in the said referred case the appellant therein was appointed as Deputy District Attorney on the direction of Chief Minister in exercise of powers of 23 of the Punjab Civil Servant Act, 1974 and in relaxation of rule 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions) Rules, 1974. Likewise, judgment relied upon PLD 1964 SC 64 also does not support the appellant because the initial act of deputation and absorption was found illegal and void ab initio therefore, the arguments of bias of being judge of their own cause of respondent authority has no such weight to perpetuate the illegality. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon another judgment 1996 SCMR 413 this too is not supportive because this case was in regard to the initial recruitment and question of lack of requisite qualification was not involved. There was some lapse on the part of the authority but the case in hand is altogether different. 2002 SCMR 1034 is also not relevant for the reasons that it was a case of initial appointment and irregularities took place therein. The case in hand is not of initial recruitment rather the deputation and absorption was entirely illegal as discussed hereinabove. We feel' it appropriate to refer the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported 2014 PLC
(CS) 82 page 198 pare 174:- "174. Locus poenitentiae is the power of receding till a decisive step is taken but it is not a principle of law that order once passed becomes irrevocable and past and closed transaction. If the order is illegal then perpetual rights cannot be gained on the basis of an illegal order. In the present case, the benefits extended to the different employees or civil servants through the impugned legislations are not only violative of law but are also ultra vires of the Constitution referred hereinabove. In such-like situation the principle of locus poenitentiae does not attract."
17. In view of what has been discussed above, the appeal is dismissed, being devoid of merits.