' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- Muhammad Hasil, Road Inspector, Punjab Highway Department Sub-Division, Dera Ghazi Khan, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Communication and Works Department, Lahore and Chief Engineer, Punjab Highway Department, Lake Road, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that impugned order, dated 23-9-1980, be set aside and he may be restored in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, while he was serving as Road Inspector was involved in a case alongwith Overseer as well as S.D.O. And was proceeded by the Secretary, C&W Department, respondent No,1 under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975, as two of the co- accused held a senior rank in which the competent authority was the Secretary, C&W Department.
An enquiry was conducted in this case by the XEN of the same Department who first of all gave him a questionnaire to answer certain questions and recorded his statement and at a subsequent date in his absence recorded evidence of few persons against him. On the strength of this enquiry he forwarded his case to the Secretary C&W. The Authorised Officer who was Chief Engineer in this case i,e, respondent No,2 who while imposing minor penalty on the S.D.O. As well as on the Overseer, visited him with major penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved against this dismissal he straightway went to the Labour Court and agitated his claim highlighting the irregularities so committed by the Enquiry Officer in the proceedings so conducted by him against the appellant under the E&D Rules. The Labour Court was pleased to set aside the order of the competent authority vide its judgment, dated 31-3-1982. After getting the order in his favour from the Labour Court he went to the Secretary C&W Department, who honoured the order of the said Court and re- instated him in service w,e,f, 3-7-1982. However, the order of the Labour Court was challenged by the respondent before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which accepted the appeal of the Department and declared the appellant as civil servant by the order, dated 3-4-1983. The appellant approached the High Court in its writ jurisdiction but the same was dismissed in limine and the appellant was declared as civil servant by the said Court. The appellant immediately came before the Punjab Service Tribunal and was allowed status quo and appeal was admitted for regular hearing.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of the case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the entire enquiry proceedings are liable to be vitiated because the same are absolutely against the principle of natural justice, as well as of the E&D Rules. He has also vehemently assailed the impugned order of the authorised officer, which according to him could not be passed against the appellant as the matter had to be referred to the competent authority i,e, Secretary, C&W, who had initiated the proceedings against the appellant as well as his two seniors. He has also highlighted before us that both the S.D.O. As well as Overseer, who went in appeal before the next higher authority, have been exonerated. In this manner it has been argued that the appellant's dismissal was absolutely unjustified, illegal and liable to be quashed.
6. With regard to the condonation of delay, it has been submitted that the appellant under legal advice approached the Labour Court and the Presiding Officer of the said Court who always happened to be the rank of a Sessions Judge, decided the case in his favour, thinking it justified on merits as well as on law. It has been submitted that further delay if any was caused by the Department itself, who went in appeal before the Labour Appellate Court and the appellant had just to defend his case as well as to seek remedy before the Lahore High Court.
7. Learned District Attorney on the other hand, submitted that without contesting the case on merits, as well as the prayer for condonation of delay, the case is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the appellant has failed to exhaust the remedy before the next higher authority which so incumbent upon him in view of section 4(1)(a) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
8. We have taken all these arguments into consideration so advanced by the parties, and without giving any observation on the merits of the case, as well as of the inquiry procedure, held that the appellant was duty bound to exhaust all the remedies so available to him before coming to this Tribunal. We are conscious of the fact that this point so raised today by the learned District Attorney did not come to the notice of the Tribunal at the time of admission of this case to regular hearing as on the strength of the same, status quo was granted by this Tribunal. However, we do not feel in any way, sorry for the same, as the facts stated by the learned counsel for the appellant and so given by us in the brief history of this case are self-evident.
9. However, in view of the mandatory provisions of section 4(1)(a) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 we have no alternative but to dispose of the appeal as premature with the direction to the appellant that he should first exhaust all remedies so available to him before the next higher authorities. However, there will be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.