JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, C.J.--- Background of the case is that after the 18th Amendment in the Constitution, the General Sales Tax upon services has devolved upon the Provinces, consequently , the Balochistan Revenue Authority Act, 2015 (the Act) was promulgated, pursuant to which, the Balochistan Revenue Authority (the BRA) was to be established, consisting upon its Chairperson and member , to be appointed, as per the procedure provided by the Act. Consequently , the Government of Balochistan, through an advertisement in daily newspapers, invited applications for the appointment of the Chairperson of the BRA. The petitioner along with others applied for the post, where-after he was recommend ed by the Committee. In this behalf, an offer of appointment dated 22nd August 2017, containing terms and conditions for the service was issued. The petitioner accepted the offer of appointment vide acceptance letter dated 24th August 2017, hence, he was appointed as Chairperson of the BRA, for a period of three years, vide Notification dated 11th September 2017. During his tenure as Chairperson BRA, certain allegations were levelled against the petitioner by the Government, in result whereof, an inquiry was initiated against him and finally , a major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon him, vide Notification dated 7th March 2020 and at the same time, through another Notification of the even dated, the respondent No.4 was posted as Chairperson BRA, hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the show-cause notice, dated 7th February 2020, issued to the petitioner is without jurisdiction, based on mala fides and against the natural justice, therefore, the same is void, hence is liable to be set aside. According to him, the Notification impugned dated 7th March 2020, through which a. major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner , based upon the illegal show-cause notice is also illegal, hence is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel added that before issuing Notification in question, no proper or regular inquiry has been conducted nor any opportunity was provided to the petitioner , which is a violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution, therefore, the Notification in question is illegal on this score as well.
The learned counsel relied upon a case of "E1AC v. Shaista Naheed" , reported in (2004 SCMR 316), (2004 SCMR 1662), (2008 SCMR 1369 ), (2010 SCMR 1546 ) and (2019 SCMR 640). He added that since through a special enactment the BRA has been established, therefore, it is a statutory body , having its independent administrative and financial powers, as such, the respondents have no lawful authority to interfere and take any action against the Chairperson, members and employees of the BRA. The learned counsel stated that the BRA employees are public servants, therefore, the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974, the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009 and the Balochistan Employees' Efficiency and Discipline Act (BEEDA), 2011 are not applicable to them, therefore, the dismissal of the petitioner from his service, by exercising power under the BEEDA is illegal, thus, the notification in question is without jurisdiction, hence is void. He argued that even otherwise, as per the Act and the Service Regulations, the competent authority is the BRA, whereas in both the notifications, the Chief Minister Balochistan has been shown as competent authority , who does not figure in the Act or the Regulations, on whose direction, the Chief Secretary has imposed major penalty of dismissal from service of the petitioner and in his place, the respondent No.4 has been appointed through separate notification, therefore, both the notifications being without jurisdiction are void. The learned counsel stated that even the Government of Balochistan has declared the Chief Minister as appellate authority in the cases of employees of revenue, police and levies personnel in B-16 and above. According to him, the Chairperson BRA is dealing in revenue matters, therefore. the Chief Minister being appellate authority , cannot be considered as competent authority for the purpose of dismissal from service of the petitioner , on this score as well, the notifications in question are illegal. The learned counsel stated that while initiating any proceeding against any employee of the BRA, Section 25 of the Act is to be followed, but the needful has not been done in the case of the petitioners, hence the notification in question is illegal on this score too. The learned counsel stated that certain decisions/acts of the petitioner have been made basis for his removal from services, but according to him, Section 24 of the Act empowers the Chairperson to take any action or decision on behalf of the authority , till its establishment, therefore, any act done by the petitioner was in accordance with the Act and based on bona fide intention. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner though accepted the offer of appointment through letter dated 24th August 2020, but on the very next day i.e. on 25th August 2020, he wrote another letter to the Secretary Finance, Government of Balochistan, with regard to terms and conditions, which was not replied, therefore, it amounts to acceptance by the authority , on the basis whereof, the petitioner was drawing his salary , therefore, no illegality has been committed by the petitioner . He added that the respondent No.4 is illegally holding the post of Chairperson, as there is no provision in the Act to post or transfer any person/of ficial as Chairperson, therefore, the notification of his appointment is also void.
3. The learned A.G. and the learned counsel for the BRA opposed the contention and stated that the notification of appointment of the petitioner and the notification in question have been issued by the Chief Secretary Government of Balochistan, being the head of the committee for the appointment of a Chairperson, BRA, with prior approval of the competent authority i.e. the Chief Minister . They added that the petitioner was offered appointment through letter dated 22nd August 2017 with terms and conditions of the service, mentioned therein, which clearly indicates that his services will be governed by the relevant rules of the Government of Balochistan, applicable to the Civil Servants, therefore, upon some serious allegations, an action under the BEEDA was taken against him by the competent authority . The learned counsel stated that since the offer of appointment along with its terms and conditions was accepted. by the petitioner through written letter of acceptance, on 24th August 2017, therefore, he is stopped under the law to raise objection upon the jurisdiction of the authority . They stated that the petitioner has misused his authority by drawing extra salary , bonuses and allowances, and thereby caused loss of millions of rupees to the Government of Balochistan , therefore, the act of the petitioner was in violation of the law, rules and procedures, as such, after service of the show-cause notice, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and after providing personal hearing by the Chief Secretary Balochistan, the notification of dismissal of service of the petitioner was issued. He added that sufficient un-rebutted evidence was available on the record, on the bases whereof, no further inquiry was needed, therefore, the petitioner has no right to raise objection on the proceedings.
Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the petitioner was drawing extra amount in the shape of salary , allowances, bonuses and perks without the approval of the competent authorit y, which amounts to excess of authority . The learned A.G. and the learned counsel for the respondent stated that despite the fact that the authority was not established, the petitioner misuse d his authority by making appointments in the BRA, which is an illegality .
The learned counsel stated that the petitioner has twisted the facts and the grounds raised in the petition are baseless, therefore, the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are altogether different from the facts and circumstances of this case.
4. Arguments heard and have perused the record. Under section 3 of the Act, the Government by notification shall establish an Authority called "the Baloc histan Revenue Authority (BRA)". The Authority shall consist of the Chairperson and not less than four members. Under subsection (4) of section 3, the Chairperson of the BRA shall be appointed by a Government Commit tee, comprising of the Chief Secretary , the Secretary Finance and the Secretary Services and General Administration, in such a manner and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. Subsection (5) of section 3 prescribes qualification of the Chairperson and members of the authority .
5. The petitioner was recommended by the Government Committee for his appointment as Chairperson of the BRA, consequently an offer of appointm ent was issued to him by the appointing authority through Secretary Finance. Government of Balochistan, vide letter dated 22nd August 2017. Accor ding to clause 6 of the offer of appointment, the services of the petition ers were to be governed by the relevant rules of the Government of Balochistan, applicable to the Civil servants. The offer of appointment was accepted by the petitioner in writing through letter dated 24th August 2017, however he issued another letter dated 25th August 2017, with a request to make it as integral part of his acceptanc e letter . Though the petitioner submitted another letter on 25th August 2017, but there is no evidence on the record to prove the fact that it was accepted by the competent authority . To the contrary , with mutual understanding, the petitioner joined the post of Chairper son on the bases of the offer of appointment, according to which, the services of the petitioner were to be governed as per the Civil Servant Services Rules. Thus, upon receiving complaint, the competent authority intended to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by invoking powers conferred upon him by the BEEDA, which is applicable to the Civil Servants. The reason for applying the Government officers' service rules to the Chairperson was that there were no service rules for BRA Chairperson, members or employees, nor the law on the point was clear , A therefore, in the given circumstances, the petitioner is bound by the applicable rules. Since according to the BEEDA, the Chief Minister Government of Balochistan is the authority to take disciplinary actio n against the civil servant of the Government of Balochistan, therefore, on the same analogy , disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner . Besides, the inquiry was conducted by the Chief Secretary and the notification of dismissal of petitioner from his service was also issued by the Chief Secretary , who is otherwise head of the Government Committee. The petitioner has already accepted the authority of the Chief Minister , when he accepted the notification of his appointment, issued by the Chief Secretary , on 11th September , 2017, with approval of the competent authority i.e. the Chief Minister . It is a settled principal of law that if an authority is competent to approve appointment of any person for a specific position, that authority is equally competent to A approve removal of that person from service.
In the present case, since the Chief Minister , had approved the appointment of the petitioner , therefore, he is quite competent to agree with the recommenda tion of the Chief Secretary , with regard to his removal from the position of Chairperson. Under such circumstances, the notification in question with regard to his removal from service has rightly and competently been issued. The objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the jurisdiction of the Chief Minister and Chief Secretary has no force in it.
6. The allegation against the petitioner is that he at his own, has fixed his pay and drawing bonuses much more than offered to him through the offer of appointment, without the permission of the competent authority . The petitioner did not dispute the withdrawal of the alleged amount, however , he contended that it has been approved by the competent authority . In this behalf, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a summery to the Chief Minister . Perusal of the record would reveal that the Chief Minister did not permit the petitioner to increase or re-fix his salary and bonuses, but he increased the salary and bonuses on his own, without the approval of the competent authority . He was not entitled for drawing the same, hence he has misused his authority by doing so.
The factum of drawing extra salary and other benefits were not denied by the petitioner in reply to the show-cause notice, however , he tried to justify his act, but has failed to succeed. Under such circumstances, when enough material was available, the inquiry officer had the authority to dispense with a full fledge inquiry as the allegation levelled against the petitioner were proved through the undisputed and un-rebu tted record. The petitioner was provided opportunity of hearing, by the Chief Secretary , but he did not satisfy the inquiry officer, as such; the contentions of the petitioner that he was unheard and that a detailed inquiry was needed, are incorrect. The inquiry committee acted justly and fairly, therefor e, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference. As far as the above referred case relied by the petitioner is concerned, facts and circumstances of those cases are altogether dif ferent from the case in hand, therefore, it is not helpful for the petitioner .
7. Now dilating upon the posting of the respondent No.4. Admittedly , he is a Government officer and through the second notification in question, he has been posted as a Chairperson BRA. As has been discussed hereinabove that section 3 of the Act, provides the authority , procedure and eligibility for the appointment of a Chairperson BRA.
There is no provision in the Act for posting or transfer of a Government official to act as a Chairperson. If the posting of the respondent No.4 is considered as an appointment, even then, no procedure as provided by section 3 of the Act has been adopted. Neither any publication in the newspaper has been made inviting applications from the persons eligible for the post, nor the Government Committee has interv iewed and recommended the respondent No.4 for his posting as the Chairperson. Though in the notification, it is stated that with prior approval of the competent authority , Dr. Saqib Ahmed Khan (B-19) is hereby posted as Chairperson BRA, but there is no evidence to prove the fact that the competent authority has given approval regarding his posting as Chairperson BRA. Even otherwise, if it is believed that the posting of the respondent No.4 is with prior approval of the Chief Minister , the Act does not empower the Chief Minister as well to post any person as Chairperson, without following the procedure provided by the Act or without the recommendation of the Government Committee. Moreover , the manner in which the respondent No.4, was posted as Chairperson, seems to be a simple transfer as an officer, from the Governmental Department. Under such circumstances, the posting of the respondent No.4 as Chairperson is illegal. After his posting, the respondent No.4 was getting extra pay, perks, bonuses and privileges, but legally he was not entitled for the same. There is no fixed salary , perks and privileges for the Chairperson BRA, however , it is subject to the terms and conditions, as the appointing authority may deems fit. The record reflects that there is no term and condition offered to the respondent No.4, by the appointing authority . It seems that he was also getting the benefits on his own, like the petitioner was getting or if it is offered by the competent authority , it was not competent to do so, therefore, the act of the authority , if any, is also illegal. The respondent No.4 is drawing extra salary , allowances and bonuses of the Chairperson BRA, instead of his own salary of Grade-19 officer, for which, he is not entitled.
Thus, in view of above, the petition to the extent of Notification No.S-II-2(4)/2020-S&GAD dated 7th March 2020 regarding dismissal of the petitioner from service, is dismissed, consequently the said notification holds the field. As far as the Notification No.S-II-2(4) / 2020-S&GAD dated 17th April 2020, regarding the posting of the respondent No.4, is concerned, the same being issued unauthorizedly , hence is declared illegal therefore, the same is set aside. The petition to such extent is allow ed. The respondent No.4 was since drawing extra salaries, bonuses and allowances, therefore, he is directed to return all extra amounts drawn within a period of 90 days. The Government should immediately take steps for the appointment of a Chairperson BRA, in accordance with the Act, and to complete the process possibly within a period of 30 days.