' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). -Irshad Ahmad has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Director-General, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Punjab, Lahore, the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Multan, the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Sahiwal and the Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the order, dated 18th October, 1983 of Director-General, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Government of the Punjab regarding his compulsory retirement be set aside as the same is unjust and unlawful.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Sub-Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department. The appellant while working as Sub-Engineer in P. H. E. Sub-Division, Sahiwal, was charge-sheeted on 10th April, 1982 by the Authorised Officer i,e, Executive Engineer, P.
H. E., Multan Division, Multan. The detail of the charge-sheet is at Annexure 'D' and statement of allegations is at Annexure 'E'. The appellant submitted reply to the Authorised Officer vide his letter, dated 24th April, 1982 detail at Annexure `L'. Authorised Officer i,e, Executive Engineer, P. H.
Engineering Division, Multan, himself acted as Enquiry Officer and completed the enquiry on 19th May, 1982. On the basis of this enquiry conducted by the Authorised Officer himself, the appellant was dismissed from service by Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Multan vide his order dated 20th May, 1982. The appellant made an appeal to the Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Punjab, Lahore. However, Mr. Shafqat Hussain Qureshi, Director- General, Housing and Physical Planning Department was appointed to act as Appellate Authority in relation to the appeal of the appellant by order, dated 16th June, 1983 of the Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Lahore. This Appellate Authority reduced the penalty of dismissal to compulsory retirement from service of the appellant vide his order, dated 18th October, 1983. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties i,e, Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, counsel for the appellant and Mr. Masood Ahmad Ghuman, Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department on behalf of the respondents.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been proceeded under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, but the proceedings have not been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the said rules. The appellant was charge-sheeted and enquiry was required to be conducted as per Efficiency and Discipline Rules through an independent Enquiry Officer. The Authorised Officer himself acted as a Enquiry Officer and conducted the enquiry against the appellant which is in violation of the mandatory provisions of rule 6, ibid. According to this rule the Authorised Officer should have appointed an independent Enquiry Officer and could not undertake the functions of Enquiry Officer himself. Since the Authorised Officer has conducted enquiry himself in contrary to the provisions of Efficiency and Discipline Rules and the impugned orders have been passed on that enquiry, therefore, the entire proceedings including both the impugned orders of his dismissal and compulsory retirement are unlawful, cannot be sustained and be quashed.
6. The learned Deputy District Attorney was asked to rebut the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant but he could not successfully meet the above objection of the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. The relevant provisions as contained in rule 6, are reproduced as follows "6. Procedure to be observed by the Authorised Officer.
(2) Within three days of the receipt of the direction from the authority under rule 5, or within such further period as may be allowed by the authority at the written request of the Authorized Officer, the Authorized Officer shall decide whether in the light of the facts of the case or in the interest of justice, an inquiry is necessary.
(5) If under sub-rule (2) the Authorized Officer considers that an inquiry is necessary, be shall appoint an Inquiry Officer or an Inquiry Committee consisting of two or more persons who or one of whom shall be of. a rank senior to that of the accused or if there are more than one accused, senior to all the accused.
(6) Where an Inquiry Officer or an Inquiry Committee is appointed under sub-rule (5), the Authorised Officer shall simultaneously frame a charge and communicate it to the accused together with a statement of allegations explaining the charge and other relevant circumstances which are proposed to be taken into consideration and require the accused, within a reasonable time which shall not be less than seven days or more than fourteen days from the day the charge has been communicated to him, to put in a written defence directly before the Inquiry Officer or the Inquiry Committee, as the case may be.
(7) The Authorized Officer, immediately after communicating the charge to the accused under sub-rule (6), shall forward such record or copies thereof and such other material as is necessary for the conduct of the inquiry to the' Inquiry Officer or the Inquiry Committee, as the case may be."
' According to the above provisions of the rule 6, it was mandatory for the Authorized Officer to appoint an independent Enquiry Officer or Enquiry Committee under the circumstances of the case but the Authorized Officer (Executive Engineer, P. H. Engineering Division, Multan himself acted as an Authorized Officer as well as Enquiry Officer. This action of the Authorized Officer to act as Authorized Officer and Enquiry Officer was against the rules, being unlawful, cannot be sustained.
Similarly the orders of dismissal and compulsory retirement of the appellant which have been based upon the unlawful action/recommendations of the Authorized officer also become equally unlawful.
8. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is accepted, the impugned orders are set aside and case is remanded to the competent authority to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 as mentioned above.
The appellant is directed to be re-instated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant. The fate of the period for which the appellant remained out of service shall also be decided by the competent authority after proceeding afresh against the appellant as mentioned above.
9. There is no order as to cost.