ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).--- Atta Ullab, ex-Naib Qasid has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 against the order dated 15th April, 1981 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mianwali whereby he was dismissed from service and against the order of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha dated 4th July, 1981, wherein his appeal was rejected.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that both the impugned orders be set aside and he be re- instated into service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Riaz Ahmad Driver of Tehsildar complained on 3rd December, 1980, that the appellant along with two other Naib-Qasids namely Muhammad Sadiq Khan and Ghulam Hussain were deputed to recover the revenue from the land owners of Mianwali and during that process they received Rs. 190 and Rs. 120 fraudulently from the lambardars of Chak No. 1/DB and 21/138 respectively. On this complaint the appellant and two other Naib-Qasids were charge--sheeted as under :- "That a complaint was made by Riaz Ahmad driver to Tehsildar, Mianwali wherein he pointed out that they received amount from various lambardars in the name of Tehsildar, Mianwali in an authorised manner, preliminary enquiry was held by the N.T. Mianwali, who reported that they received Rs. 190 and Rs. 120 from Ali Muhammad and Sardar Muhammad, Lambardars of Chak No. 1/DB and 21/DB respectively and distributed it in three equal shares. Moreover; such other complaints have been received which reveal that they have a persistent reputation of being corrupt."
The Deputy Commissioner, Mianwali appointed E. A. C. (R) as Enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report to the Deputy Commissioner. The Enquiry Officer had found the appellant guilty of the charge. After hearing the appellant in person, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed him from service vide his order dated 15th April, 1981.. The appellant made an appeal before the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha which was rejected vide his order dated 4th July, 1981. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney on behalf of the Departmental authority. It has been argued that according to the Board of Revenue Delegation of Powers Rules, 1958, the appointing authority and the authority competent to reduce in rank, remove or dismiss from service with respect to Class-IV Establishment of the Deputy Commissioner's Office is "A.C.S.P. Or P.C.S. Officer whom the Deputy Commissioner may appoint". It has also been argued that the authority competent to award major and minor punishments is also the same while the appellate authority is the Deputy Commissioner concerned. He has also submitted that in view of the rule 2(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, the authority and authorised officer with respect to the appellant would be "A.C.S.P. Or P.C.S. Officer whom the Deputy Commissioner may ,appoint". He has concluded that the entire action against the appellant has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner himself so all the proceedings are without jurisdiction and the impugned order is void ab initio. On the other hand the learned District Attorney assisted by the represen--tative of the Deputy Commissioner, Mianwali has only relied on the parawise comments submitted by the Deputy Commissioner to say that the appointing authority with respect to the appellant is the Deputy) Commissioner. Thus, the order has been passed lawfully.
5. We have duly considered the arguments of the parties and have perused the record of the case.
The contention of the respondent that the Deputy Commissioner is the appointing authority of the appellant is incorrect. We have examined the West Pakistan Revenue Department, District Ministerial Service Rules, 1964 so relied upon by the respondents. Rule 3 of these rules relates to the constitution and composition of service which provides that the cadre post of the service would be the posts as specified in column 2 of the appendix. We have seen the appendix where there is no mention of the post of a Naib-Qasid or any other member of Class-IV Establishment. So we hold that these rules are not applicable to the case of the appellant or the Class-IV Establishment of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner. In the absence of any service rules, we have to rely only on the Board of Revenue Delegation of Powers Rules, 1958. According to the Sr. No. 13 of schedule appended to these rules, the authorised officer and the authority in the case of the appellant has been prescribed as "A.C.S.P. Or P.C.S. Officer whom the Deputy Commissioner may appoint" and the Deputy Commissioner himself is the appellate authority in case of major punishments. Thus, we are in agreement with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner incompetently and without jurisdiction.
6. In view of the above analysis, we set aside the impugned orders accept the appeal and remand the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Mianwali who proceed against the appellant keeping in view the above observations so made by us and the provisions contained in rules 5 to 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. The appellant shall be re-instated in service to bestow upon him the status of the civil servant to enable the departmental authority to proceed against him.
However, the period from the date of his dismissal to that of re-instatement would be treated as extra ordinary leave without pay.
There will be no orders as to costs.