' Tariq Noor, Ex-Unit Supervisor/Training Instructor, Agriculture Department, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Province of Punjab through the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore, Director-General Agriculture Engineer (Field) Punjab, Lahore, Director of Agricultural Engineer, Multan Region, Multan and the Agricultural Engineer, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 1st September, 1983 passed by respondent No, 3 and communicating the acceptance of alleged resignation be set aside and the appellant be declared to be continuing in service under the respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed in the first instance as Training Instructor in the office of Assistant Agricultural Engineer vide order, dated 8th January, 1977. Later on he was posted as Unit Supervisor Ahmadpur East and was selected by the Departmental Selection Committee for the said post. On 25th November, 1981 he was suspended on the allegation of non- compliance of the orders of transfer of Muhammad Aslam from Ahmadpur East, vide order, dated 30th August, 1981. The appellant kept on requesting respondent No, 4 for reinstatement when the said Munshi Muhammad Aslam was found guilty of misappropriation, but no attention was paid to his repeated requests and no such order was issued. During the said period be was receiving the suspension allowance. On 1st January, 1982 the respondent No, 4 stopped making Subsistance Allowance and thereupon the appellant made an application firstly on 27th April, 1982 and then on 25th April, 1983 and 23rd August, 1983 respectively. In response to his request he was informed as under :- "Mr. Tariq Noor has no bearing because he lost appointment on 2nd April, 1979. As such there is no occasion for extending ad hoc appointment, or relieving the said person. As much no allowance can be paid for the said period."
' Aggrieved against this order the appellant made an appeal before the Director Agriculture Engineer, Multan, but without any response. When Munshi Muhammad Aslam was reinstated by the Director Agriculture vide order, dated 6th November, 1983 w. e. f. 1st December, 1983 the appellant again clamoured for his reinstatement. However, the appellant received another astonishing letter, dated 17th January, 1985 by which he has been informed that his resignation so tendered as far back as 1982, has been accepted and would, therefore, be no more in service. Hence this appeal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have also noted the presence of Mr. Abdul Ghani Agricultural Engineer, who was present before this Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although the appellant had accepted his posting on ad hoc basis despite of the fact that he had been earlier regularised but the same could not be terminated in the way the Department has so terminated. It has been argued that the appellant was placed under suspension under section 6(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, but no enquiry was held nor any charge-sheet was served on any account and when ad hoc period had expired in 1979 no further extension was granted nor he was intimated that his services were terminated due to non-extension of the said ad hoc period. It has been pointed out that the appellant had been receiving subsistence allowance upto 31st January, 1982. He has referred to the letter of Director Agricultural Engineer Multan respondent No, 3 through respondent No, 4, dated 20th October, 1980 endorsed vide No, 15191-92/Estt, dated 29th November, 1982 that the case to regularise the ad hoc period of the appellant has been moved to Government and as soon as the decision is received the same will be communicated, to him. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that when the appellant appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee he found that the Committee did not approve his selection and instead promoted his three juniors, he went before the Civil Court to challenge the said action of the respondents and was successful in getting the stay order. However, the stay order was vacated after the order of the Civil Court. According to the learned counsel the vacation of the stay order was on the assurance of respondent No, 4 that he will be regularised in service, therefore, he withdrew his case. Learned counsel for the appellant has expressed his surprise on the contradictory stand of the respondents by pointing out that now recently he received a letter in which he has been informed that the resignation tendered by the appellant as far back as 1982, has been accepted in 1985, therefore, he would be no more in service on the strength of the said letter. According to the learned counsel for the appellant this has been done when the Department has felt that the appellant has filed appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal and likely to expose a number of irregularities and unjust acts perpetuated against the appellant, therefore, the respondents have taken shelter under a resignation acceptance letter which was obtained from the appellant under coercion in the year 1982.
5. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Department as they are, and has submitted that as soon as the period of ad hoc appointment of the appellant expired in the year 1979, and was not further extended he would automatically cease to exist as a civil servant, therefore, the Department was fully justified to hold that he had lost his job. With regard to the latest letter of the Department that the appellant's resignation tendered in 1982 has been accepted in 1985, it has been submitted that the Department was within its rights to accept his resignation which was lying in the Department although the same has been conveyed to him a bit late.
' I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the Department has conceded that the appellant was appointed as Training Instructor in the Agricultural Engineering Department by the Director of Agricultural Engineering Lyallpur vide order, dated 8th January, 1977. However, it has been denied that he was posted as Training Instructor. It has been admitted that later on he was appointed as Training Instructor by the Director of Agricultural Engineering, Lyallpur vide order, dated 15th June, 1977 and posted in the office of Agricultural Engineer, Bahawalpur Division as Training instructor. However, it has been urged that this order was cancelled by the Director of Agriculture Engineer, Faisalabad but the appellant was allowed to continue as Training Instructor on ad hoc basis in the Department under the said order.
It has been accepted that this period was extended for a period of 3 months. The stand of the Department is that the appellant was called upon on 15th February, 1981 to appear before the Selection Committee is somewhat bezari as there is no explanation as to how the appellant continued in service right from 2nd April, 1979 to 15th February, 1981. On this point the comments of the Department are silent and no explanation is coming forth which goes in favour of the appellant that he was in service right uptil 15th February, 1981 despite the fact his period of ad hoc appointment was not extended uptil 2nd April, 1979. The case of the respondents that the appellant went before the Civil Court to challenge the decision of the Departmental Promotion/Selection Committee and was able to secure stay order uptil (sic) does not support their case in any manner as the fact remains that from 2nd April, 1979 to 15th February, 1981 the appellant was member of service and was drawing his pay etc. And working in the Department as such. In these circumstances the letter of Director Agricultural Engineer that the appellant has lost his post/job will pale into insignificant as the unsuitable worded information which is couched, would not help the Department to declare that the appellant had lost his status since 2nd April, 1979 as the conduct of the Department happened to be contrary. The confusion created by the Department gets worst confounded when I find that only recently in the year, 1985, the appellant is being told that although he was in service uptil 1982, but his resignation which was on record, tendered by him the said year, has now been accepted in the year 1985 and he is being conveyed the same as having been accepted. This by itself is highly contradictory stand and amounts to blow hot and cold in the same breath. If the Department was sure of its action that appellant has ceased to be a civil servant after 2nd April, 1979 the date on which his ad hoc appointment so expired, then by no rhyme and reason his resignation of the year 1982, is being accepted and he has been thrown out from service on that score. The respondents in this manner have first of all destroyed their own earlier stand that the appellant had lost status of civil servant on 2nd April, 1979. This being so the appellant would definitely be treated according to the stand of the Department itself a civil servant uptil 1982, the date of his alleged resignation, and the earlier letter gives self-discredence to the stand of the Department itself.
7. Now taking the latest act as well as of the stand of the Department that it has accepted the resignation, which according to them was lying with them since 1982, 1 fail to understand how the Department would accept the resignation of a civil servant who according to its earlier stand would be no more a civil servant since 2nd April, 1979 when this resignation was tendered by him in 1982, he should have been straightaway told that he was no more a civil servant and the question of resignation did not arise at that juncture. Furthermore, it would be bad to accept the resignation as far back as 1982, remained unnoticed by the Department despite the fact that he went before the Civil Court and remained there uptil 1982, but nothing of this sort was mentioned either before the said Court or the appellant was told of the same. This very attitude of the Department creates lot of doubt even on the authenticity of the said resignation which the appellant had vehemently denied and submitted that this was obtained from him under coercion, therefore, there was no occasion to inform the Department that the said resignation had lost its force or he bad resigned from the same. The plea of the appellant seems more plausible because if the resignation was tendered by him in the year 1982, the respondents were under obligation to take a decision one way or the other and communicate to the appellant the very fact that lot of water had flown under the bridges uptil 1985, the respondents woke one fine morning and tried to take a shelter for their illegal act on the said letter of resignation which in fact had become a dead letter by this time.
7. In the light of the peculiar circumstances of this ease am of the-considered opinion that the appellant did not cease to be a civil servant as the respondents themselves allowed him to continue as such and the present acceptance of resignation in the year 1985, would hardly be an act justified in the eye of law and would be also devoid of any moral force.
8. The result is, 1 accept the appeal, set aside both the impugned orders and hold that the appellant is a civil servant under the Department on the strength of his ad hoc appointment which came into force vide letter, dated 29th June, 1978. However, there will be no order as to costs.