' Mr. Niamat Ali, ex-Naib Qasid has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order of his dismissal from service be set aside and the appellant be ordered to be reinstated in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Mr. Niamat Ali, the appellant on the direction of Muhammad Siddique Ulfat, Naib-Wassal Baqi Navees, received Rs, 1,349,95 from Hakim Ali, Lambardar, of Chak No, 509/E. B., Tehsil Burewala as the amount outstanding against said Hakim Ali for the supply of pesticides to him. The appellant handed over the amount in question to Munir Ahmed, Wassal Baqi Navees, Burewala, District Vehari, and later on, said Munir Ahmed, did not make the deposit of the amount in question, whereon the appellant left with no alternative, but to make the deposit by borrowing the amount from some of his relatives. While making the said deposit, it appeared that Rs, 90 have been charged extra from said Lambardar, whereon the appellant paid back this amount to the Lambarddr; in token of this fact the Lambardar issued a receipt in the name of the appellant. The appellant was served with a charge sheet, who duly replied the same. Enquiry was also conducted. However, he was dismissed by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Vehari on 7th April, 1981 as charge of misappropriation of Government dues stood proved against the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan but the same was dismissed on 2nd November, 1981. The appellant made revision petition to the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore which was also dismissed, vide his order dated 20th April, 1982. Hence this appeal.
4.. The arguments were put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant and also by the learned District Attorney. The legal objection was raised at the outset by the learned counsel of the appellant that the appellant has been dismissed by the authority i,e, Deputy Commissioner, Vehari who was not competent authority in this case. In the case of the appellant who was a Naib-Qasid, the authority as per Board of Revenue Delegation of Power Rules, 1958 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 the order of his dismissal was not passed by the competent authority and is unlawi al and void ab initio.
5. I have duly considered the above objection of the learned counsel of the appellant. The contention of the appellant's counsel that the Deputy Commissioner, Vehari is not the competent authority to dismiss the appellant is correct. In similar case No, 414/1615 of 1981, Atta Ullah v. The State, we have already held that the Deputy Commissioner is not the competent authority for awarding major punishment in the case of Naib Qasid. Accodring the Serial No, 13 of schedule appended to the Board of Revenue Delegation of Power Rules, 1958, 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 is the appellate authority in case of major punishments.
Thus. I am in agreement with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order of dismissal has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Vehari incompetently and is without jurisdiction. As such, the orders of the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan and the Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, emanating from the void order of the Deputy Commissioner, Vehari are also unlawful and void.
6. In view of the above analysis, I set aside the impugned orders, accept the appeal and remand the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Vehari who may proceed against the appellant, if advised, keeping in view the above observations so made by me. The appellant shall be reinstated 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 will be treated as extraordinary leave without pay.
' There will be no orders as to costs.