MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI , J.----This consolidated order shall dispose of instant petition along with following connected petitions as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases:- W.P. No.27250 of 2016 titled Sultan Sikandar Shakir and others v. Board of Intermediate and Secondar y Education , Faisalabad through its Chairman and others.
2. Through instant petition, petitioners have, assailed audit objection along with notice dated 26.07.2016, issued by respondent-Board, whereby petitioners were directed to deposit Rs.803680/- in Board's account, received by them due to grant of personal scale.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that audit objection is a matter between respondent-Board and Finance Department and petitioners cannot be penalized. Add that respondent-Board is independent body and after observing the rules and formalities, it decided to grant personal scale to petitioners, which was acted upon and petitioners had been receiving the benefit for 25-years, therefore, the same cannot be received back on the direction of Finance Department. They argue that impugned decision has been taken without hearing petitioners. In the end, they submit that impugned measures / notice is not sustainable in the eye of law. The above submissions have not been opposed by learned Legal Advisors for respondent-Board.
4. Conversely , learned Law Officer submits that audit para was settled subject to regularization by the Finance Department but the Finance Department did not regularize the personal scales granted to petitioners, therefore, the competent authority issued impugned notices to petitioners to deposit over payment received by them in lieu of higher scales.
5. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
6. Respondent-Board is an independent body , and is competent to hold the control, administer the property , and funds under the provisions of Section 10 of the BISE Act, 1976. As per Section 11 of the Act ibid the Government of Punjab is the controlling authority of the Board but Section 12 makes it clear that the Controlling Authority has power to inspect and cause an inspection to be made, by such person or persons as it may direct, of the Offices, activities and funds of and the conduct of examinations by a Board, and to cause an enquiry to be made in respect of any matter concerning a Board, or the discharge of functions by the members , officers and employees of the Board. The controlling authority has limited powers to interfere with the financial affairs of respondent-Board. The issue to this extent has already been settled by this Court in Employees Welfare Association through President and General Secretary , Employees Welfare Association Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan and 3 others v. Board of Interm ediate and Secondary Education, Multan through Chairman and 2 others ( 2000 CLC 1 102), the relevant part of which reads as under:- "11. One other important aspect, necess ary to be mentioned at this stage, is that the respondent Board is an autonomous corporate body . The respondent Board generates its own funds for its operation and is not dependent upon grants or subsidies from the Government. The Government has been design ated as the Controlling Authority of the respondent Board by the Act. However , as the controlling Authority , the Government does not have the power to control the manner in which the respondent Board manages to raise its finances and the heads on which said funds are expended by the Board.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent referred to section 12 (1) of the Act to argue that the Controlling Authority had powers in respe ct of funds generated by the respondent Board. I have gone through the said provisions of law. It merely empowers the Government to act as Controlling Authority to inspect or cause an inspection to be made, inter alia, of the activities and funds of the Board. The power to inspect or to cause an inspection of funds, cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be extended to cover a control of the funds and the manner in which such funds are spent.
13. It is further to be noted that the austerity measures, which have been outline d in the Government's letter of 26.6.1997, can at best be considered as being applicable to such heads of expenditure which are charged on the funds of the Provincial Government. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent Board and the learned Law Officer have stated that the Board raises its own funding and prepares its own budget without requiring any supplement or grant from the Provincial Government. The letter of the Government, dated 26.6.1997 does appear to be addressed to the heads of autonomous bodies and corporations in the Punjab. However , where an autonomous body such as the respondent Board is not dependent on funds provided by the Provincial Government, it is difficult to accept the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent Board that the letter of 26.6.1997 is applicable to the respondent Board also. As noted above, the Government is only a Controlling Authority under the Act and in such capacity it can only exercise the limited functions which are delegated to it under section 12 of the aforesaid Statute. Such functions, as noted above, do not include the authority to issue mandatory directives to control the use of funds by the Board."
(Emphasis is mine)
7. Under the law, decisive steps taken by the authority cannot be withdrawn. Law is well-settled that once a right is created by extending benefit for no default of a person, the same cannot be taken away on mere assumption, supposition, whims and fancy of any executive functionary . Such right, once vested, could not be destroyed or withdrawn as legal bar would come into play under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae . It has not been shown that petitioners were at fault in procuring the personal scale, the acts of respondent-authorities cannot prejudice their right. Reliance is placed upon Mst. Basharat Jehan v. Director-General, Federal Government Education, FGEI (C/Q) Rawalpindi and others (2015 SCMR 1418 ).
8. Following the ratio settled in the case of Employees Welfare Association supra, this petition, along with connection petition, is allowed in the manner that impugned order is declared to be illegal and without lawful authority . The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 / Secretary Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad, with direction to reconsider the matter in the light of observations contained in above-referred judgment and decide the same afresh strictly in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioners and all concerned, through a speaking order , within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order , under intimation to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial). Office shall transmit copy of this petition along with annexures to respondent No.2 forthwith.