ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Mr. Muhammad Sarwar, Accountant-cum-Cashier Office of Superintendent, Livestock Experiment Station, Bhunikey (Pattoki), District Kasur, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he was im--pleaded Livestock Economist, Directorate of Livestock Farms, Punjab, Lahore, Director Livestock Farms, Punjab; Lahore, and the Director---General (Extension), Livestock and Dairy Development, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the im--pugned orders dated 21-3-1981, 17-10-1981 and 6-1-1982 be set aside and the penalty of recovery of Rs. 6,032.80 be quashed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant, Mr. Muhammad Sarwar, Accountant-cum-Cashier (Senior Clerk) of Livestock and Dairy Development, Punjab, was served with a -charge- sheet/statement of allegations vide order dated 14-2-1978 of respondent No. 1. The appellant submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. Mr. Muhammad Hussain Qureshi, Project Director, Wool/Hair and Mutton Production, Multan, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. On consideration of the enquiry report and also explana--tion of the appellant, the charges were established against the appellant and he was served with a show-cause notice vide order dated 30-4-1979 of respondent No. I. Consequently the appellant was found guilty of charges and penalties of recovery of embezzled amount of Rs. 6,032.80 and two annual increments with accumulative effect were imposed upon him vide respondent No. 1 order dated 21-3-1981. The appellant made an appeal to Director, Livestock Farm, Punjab, Lahore. The penalties imposed by respondent No. I were modified to the extent that penalty regarding withholding of appellant's two increments was waived and in lieu of this he was severely warned to improve his sense of responsibility in future. He made an appeal to Director-General (Extension), Livestock and Dairy Development, Punjab, Lahore which was disposed of vide his order dated 6-1-1982. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. A legal objection has been raised by the learned counsel of the appellant by submitting that respondent No. 1, Livestock Economist, Directorate of Livestock Farms, Punjab, Lahore, had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter, charge-sheet the appellant and to impose any punishment ; because according to the Delegation of Powers Rules, 1979 of the Directorate of Livestock Farms, Punjab, notified on 25-6-1979, the "Authority" and Authorised Officer", in case of appellant as per schedule appended to these Rules, Serial 8 (f) (h), for Senior Clerk/ Accountant-cum-Cashier, is Superintendent of the Farm concerned and not the Livestock Economist, Directorate of Livestock Farms, Punjab, Lahore. The respondent No. I has acted illegally and without jurisdic--tion. Thus, the impugned order dated 21-3-1981 of respondent No. 1 is unlawful and void ab initio. It was prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant that impugned orders be quashed on these grounds. The learned District Attorney also agreed with the above view points of the learned counsel of the appellant that Livestock Economist, respondent No. 1, has acted without jurisdiction, as he was not the competent authority in case of the appellant.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the Delegation of Powers Rules in this case The appellant was charge-sheeted in the year, 1978 when the Delegation of Powers Rules, 1979 of the Directorate of Livestock Farms, Punjab, were not in operation. The West Pakistan Animal Husbandry Department Delegation of Powers Rules, 1962 were in vogue wherein the authority competent to suspend, reduce in rank, retire compulsorily, remove or dismiss in case of the appellant was Livestock Economist but authority competent to award other punishments was Superintendent Farm. Thus, under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, according to which the appellant was charge-sheeted and proceeded, the "Authority" and the "Authorised Officer". Was as follows as per page 3 of Guide Book for Departmental Inquiries under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975-S&GAD :----- "According to Rules authority' and authorised officer' have been defined as the Government or any officer authorised to perform the functions of 'authority' and `authorized officer'. The `authority' is empowered to impose minor penalties. These authorities are sup--posed to be prescribed in the respective Delegation of Powers Rules but in order to cater for cases where such rules have not been framed the authorities which were competent to award major punishments under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1960 are deemed to be authority' under the 1975 Rules. Similarly, the authorities com--petent to impose minor penalties under 1960 Rules are deemed to be authorized officers' under the 1975 Rules. Where delegation under 1960 Rules also is not available, Government has the inherent power to exercise the functions of `authority' as well as `authorized officer'."
Thus, under the Delegation of Powers Rules, 1962, the "Authorized Officer" was Superintendent Farm who should have been allowed to pro--ceed against the appellant as per provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975. In the year 1979, the Director of Livestock Farms, Punjab, Delegation of Powers Rules, 1979, were notified on 25th June, 1979, wherein the Superintendent concerned was designed as "Authority" as well "Authorized Officer" as per Serial 8 (f ) (h) of the Schedule. Thus, the impugned order dated 21-3-1981 passed in the year 1981 by respondent No. 1, wherein he had imposed penalties on the appellant was without jurisdiction as he was not the competent authority according to the Delegation of Powers Rules, 1979. Earlier to this, he also did not allow the "Authorized Officer" to proceed in this matte 14 according to the West Pakistan Delegation of Powers Rules, 1962 and provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975.
6. Keeping the above analysis in view, the impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the `Authority' Superintendent Livestock Experiment Station, Bhunikey (Pattoki) to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, and the Director of Livestock Farms, Punjab, Delegation of Powers Rules, 1979.
There will be no orders as to costs.