' The petitioner was working as Assistant Administrator Evacuee Trust Property Board when he was proceeded against under the Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules and was ultimately removed from service w.e.f, 14-1-1981 by the orders of the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board. These orders were challenged in a revision petition but it was dismissed by the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Religious Affairs, on 28-3-1982. This brings the petitioner to the High Court in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner was proceeded against for misconduct, inefficiency and corruption on a number of allegations relating to unlawful leases of evacuee trust property and of its mismanagement. The Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of 12 out of 17 charges. The Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board agreed with the Inquiry Officer and referred the matter to the Federal Government seeking their approval. The approval was granted on 27-11-1979, but it was discovered later that no show-cause notice had been given before that. A show-cause notice was then given to the petitioner on 11-12-1979. He was also supplied with copies of the proceedings. He submitted his reply and was also heard in person. The Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board not being satisfied with the explanation ordered the removal of the petitioner from service vide his order dated 14-1-1981.
3. The learned counsel has argued that the Inquiry Officer has given his findings without any evidence. This is not quite correct. The departmental representative relied on the record and did not choose to offer any oral evidence while the present petitioner did produce a witness in defence.
The main argument advanced by the learned counsel rests on the provisions of section 12 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975. Under this provision, according to the learned counsel, the Chairman could not have passed the impugned order, as he was not the authority competent to do so. Section 12 reads as follows:-- "12. Appointment and duties of officers and staff.-- (1) The Chairman may, with the prior approval of the Federal Government and on such terms and conditions as the Board may determine, appoint Administrator, Deputy Administrators and Assistant Administrators, and may also appoint such other officers and staff as may be necessary for the efficient performance of the functions of the Board.
(2) The Chairman may, by general or special order, provide for the distribution or allocation of work to be performed by the persons appointed under subsection (1)."
A simple reading of this provision shows that the appointment is to be made by the Chairman, although before doing so, he has to obtain the approval of the Federal Government. The appointing authority in the present case, therefore, is the Chairman and not the Federal Government. The order of removal passed by the Chairman is, therefore, not bad for want of authority. What is more, this order has been issued with the prior approval of the Government. It is correct that this approval was granted in ignorance of the fact whether a notice to show-cause had been issued, but after the supply of this omission, it was not necessary to get a second approval as no new material was brought on the record.
' In view of the above considerations, I find no merit in this petition. It is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.