' Haji Abdul Rehman, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Director-General (Fields) Agriculture Department, Lahore and Director Soil Conservation, Punjab Rawalpindi, as Respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal it has been prayed by the appellant that the impugned order, dated 12-7- 1982, bearing No, 193, terminating the services of the appellant be set aside with all back benefits. a.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Assistant in the Office of Director, Soil Conservation, Punjab, Rawalpindi, when he applied for leave and then proceeded to avail the same w,e,f, 11-2-1978. His services were terminated w,e,f, 11-2-1978, vide Office Order No, 202, dated 28-6- 1978, on account of wilful absence from duty by Rana Mushtaq Ahmad, Director Soil Conservation.
On an appeal, the appellant was re-instated and taken back on duty vide office order No, 138, dated 26-4-1980, by Mr. Muhammad All Bajwa, Director Soil Conservation, by treating the period of absence from duty as leave without pay and was also warned not to avail such leave without sanction in future. The services of the appellant were again terminated w,e,f, 12-7-1982, vide office order No, 193, dated 12-7-1982, by Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Rajput, Director Soil Conservation on the same charge which was already considered and decided by his predecessor, Mr. Muhammad Ali Bajwa, Director Soil Conservation Punjab, vide his office order, dated 26-4-1980, mentioned above.
The appellant filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court but the appellant was directed td seek remedy before the Punjab Service Tribunal. However, the appellant filed an appeal before the concerned authority on 21-8-1982, waiting for 90 days, he has filed this appeal 30 days before this Tribunal as the appellant otherwise is not hopeful to have decision from the said Authority in his favour. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Faiz Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate, has argued that the appellant's services were terminated firstly by the Director Soil Conservation Punjab, Rawalpindi, Rana Mushtaq Ahmad, on 26-6-1978. Subsequently, Mr. Muhammad Ali Bajwa, the successor of Rana Mushtaq Ahmad, considered the appeal of the appellant, by acting as an Appellate Authority. He accepted his appeal and took him back on duty. For the 3rd time, Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Rajput, Director Soil Conservation again terminated the services of the appellant vide the impugned order, dated 12-7-1982, on the same charge which was earlier considered and decided by his predecessor, Mr. Muhammad Ali Bajwa. The action of Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Rajput, Director Soil Conservation, Punjab in reviewing the order of his predecessor was uncalled for, unjustified and beyond his competency. Even, he could not act as an Appellate Authority, under the West Pakistan Agriculture Department Delegation of Powers Rules, .1962. As Mr. Muhammad Ali Bajwa, his predecessor had already acted as Appellate Authority to consider and decide the appeal of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant prayed that Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Rajput, Director Soil Conservation, Punjab, Rawalpindi, could not act as an Appellate Authority and was also not competent to review the order of his predecessor, Mr. Muhammad Ali Bajwa, the order of termination of services of the appellant by him, dated 12-7-1982, is unlawful and void ab initio be quashed and set aside.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Rajput, Director Soil Conservation, Punjab, Rawalpindi, has taken a stand, through the parawise comments on this appeal and comments vide his No, 2- 16/E3, dated 26-7-1983, that he could act as an Appellate Authority in accordance with the West Pakistan Agriculture Department, Delegation of Powers Rules, 1962. He was competent to proceed against the appellant and the orders so passed by him against the appellant are lawful and correct. Learned District Attorney has also relied on the above comments submitted by the respondent.
6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have perused letter No,2- 16/E-3, dated 26-7-1983, wherein Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Rajput, the Director, Soil Conservation, Punjab, Rawalpindi has taken a stand that the orders so passed by him are competently passed as he can do so as an Appellate Authority, under the West Pakistan Agriculture Department, Delegation of Powers Rules, 1962. The history of the case reveals that the appellant's services were terminated by Rana Mushtaq Ahmad, Director Soil Conservation, Rawalpindi and subsequently his successor Mr. Muhammad Ali Bajwa, by acting as an Appellate Authority accepted the appeal of the appellant and re-instated him to his original post. Thus, Mr. Muhammad All Bajwa, had utilized and exhausted the authority of the Director, Soil Conservation to act as an Appellate Authority, as per West Pakistan Agriculture Department, Delegation of Powers Rules, 1962, so quoted by Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Rajput, the present Director Soil Conservation Punjab, Rawalpindi. I am thus, fully convinced by the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, that Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Rajput, Director of Soil Conservation, Punjab, Rawalpindi, cannot act as an Appellate Authority in the appellant's case and review the case which had ealrier been decided by Mr. Muhammad Ali Bajwa, acting as the Appellate Authority, at the relevant time. The show-cause notice served upon the appellant by Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Rajput vide his order, dated 2-5-1982, clearly shows that the charge levelled against the appellant was the same as decided earlier by Mr. Muhammad All Bajwa by acting as an Appellate Authority. Thus, the order of termination of services of the appellant, dated 12-7-1982, issued by Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Rajput, Director Soil Conservation Punjab, Rawalpindi, on the same ground and charge, is without jurisdiction, unlawful and void ab initio. In the impugned order No, 193, dated 12-7-1982, through which the services of the appellant were terminated by Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Rajput, it has been mentioned that he has taken action on the appeal of Mr. Noor Muhammad Assistant, who preferred an appeal to the Director-General Agriculture (Field), and he was directed to decide the issue being Appointing/Appellate Authority. It is worthwhile to mention that Mr. Noor Muhammad, Assistant, was not an aggrieved person in this case and his appeal was not competent and this should not have been entertained by the Departmental Authorities. The appellant was working as Assistant in the Directorate of Soil Conservation, Punjab Rawalpindi, when he proceeded on leave after applying for the same. On decision of his leave case, when the appellant was re-instated, he was taken back on his original post in his Directorate. This did not effect in any way, the rights of Mr. Noor Muhammad, Assistant. He was not an aggrieved person in his case and no notice of such biased appeal' should have been taken by the Director-General Agriculture (Field), Punjab, or the Director, Soil Conservation Punjab, Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Rajput.
7. A reliance also be placed on the judgment of Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Raja Muhammad Nawaz v. Government of the Punjab 1981 SCMR 523. On the principle of animus revertendi and locus poenitentia. Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Rajput, successor of Mr. Muhammad All Bajwa could not recall the earlier re-instatement order, dated 26-9-1980, of the appellant, especially when it had been acted upon and appellant was very much in service in the Soil Conservation Directorate, at the time of passing of the imugned order, dated 12-7-1982, by respondent No,2.
8. Keeping the above facts and analysis in view, the impugned Order No, 193, dated 12-7-1982, passed by Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Rajput, Director, Soil Conservation, Punjab, Rawalpindi in terminating the services of the appellant, is declared unlawful, void ab initio, without any merits and is set aside. The appellant is directed to be re-instated in service w,e,f, 12-7-1982, the date of termination of his service, if the services of the appellant had never been terminated with all back benefits. There will be no order as to costs.