' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-- Victor Azariah has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore and the Director of Education (Colleges), Multan Division, Multan as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the order dated 19-7-1982 passed by the Government whereby the Director of Education (Colleges), Multan Division, Multan was appointed as an "Authorized Officer" to conduct the enquiry against the appellant be set aside. He has also prayed that the subsequent proceedings held at the behest of the said Authorized Officer be quashed. He has further prayed that he be considered on duty from 7-9-1982. His leave period from 8-5-1980 to 6-9-1982 be treated against the post of Registrar, F.C.College, Lahore and also the leave case pending since 8-5-1980 be dealt with and decided by the Director of Education (Colleges), Lahore Division, Lahore.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, was working as Registrar in F.C.College, Lahore. He was transferred and posted as Students Welfare Officer in the Directorate of Education, Multan Division by the Director of Public Instruction, Punjab, Lahore vide his order, dated 7-4-1980. The appellant instead of resuming his duty at Multan sent an application for the grant of leave on medical grounds to the Principal, Government F.C.College, Lahore which was forwarded to the Director of Education (College) Multan Division, Multan through Director of Public Instruction, Punjab, Lahore. He was relieved from his duties by the Principal, Government F.C. College, Lahore on 20-5-1980 and was directed to join at Multan but the appellant did not comply with these orders.
Even afterwards, he continued sending applications (as many as seven applications) seeking extension in leave on medical grounds through the above-quoted channel without caring for the acceptance or rejection of his previous applications. On the directive of the Government vide No, SO (NC) P,-5-1/76, dated 19-7-1982, the appellant was charge-sheeted for his wilful absence from duty and misconduct. The case was entrusted for enquiry by Director of Education (Colleges)
Multan Division, Multan (Authorized Officer) to Professor Malik Bashir Ahmad, Principal, Government, Alamdar Hussain Islamia College, Multan as Enquiry Officer. On showing his inability to hold the enquiry against the appellant, Professor Musheer Ahmad Khan, Principal; Government College, Civil Lines, Multan was appointed to conduct the inquiry against the appellant by the Authorized Officer vide his order, dated 19-9-1982. The enquiry was held on 5-1-1983. At the start of enquiry the appellant submitted his statement raising objection about validity of the order passed by the Government of the Punjab for appointing Director of Education (Colleges) Multan Division, Multan as his Authorized Officer. This objection was ruled out after discussion with referene to relevant record by the Enquiry Officer and the appellant agreed and participated in the proceedings of the enquiry. Consequently the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings to the authorized officer who in return made recommendation to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Education Department the "authority". The appellant was directed by the Authority to appear for personal hearing before him. Instead of availing this opportunity, the appellant has submitted his appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Authorized Officer, Director of Education (Colleges) Multan appointed by the Government is not valid Authorized Officer as per Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. The appellant was not allowed to join at Multan under his administrative control by the said Authorized Officer as such he cannot proceed against the appellant as "Authorized Officer" as laid down under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, mentioned above. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Director of Education (Colleges) Lahore Division, Lahore should have been appointed as "Authorized Officer" as the appellant is very much on the strength of F.C.College, Lahore unless he joins at Multan. The appellant's counsel has prayed that appointment of Director Education (Colleges) Multan as 'Authorized Officer' by the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, being illegal be quashed and the Secretary Education Department be directed to appoint the proper Authorized Officer for proceeding against the appellant so that no injustice is done with him. The appellant's counsel has also relied on the judgment of this Tribunal, already given in the case of Mansur All Khan v. The Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore, etc.
5. The learned District Attorney, on the other had has rebutted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant by submitting that in appellant's case the Director of Education (Colleges), Multan Division, Multan is the correct and lawful Authorized Officer as appointed by the Government, under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975. The learned District Attorney has submitted that this case is distinguishable from the case of Mansur All Khan v. The Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Education Department etc. As relied upon by the appellant's counsel.
The facts of this case are that the appellant was transferred under the administrative control of the Director of Education (Colleges) Multan Division, Multan, and was relieved from his previous post held by him in F.C.College by the Principal, F.C.College, on 20-5-1980 to join at Multan. After 20-5- 1980 the appellant fell under the administrative control of the Director Education (Colleges) Multan Division, Multan and not under the Director Education(Colleges) Lahore as contended by the appellant's counsel. If the appellant did not join duty at Multan immediately after being relieved by the Principal F.C. College on 20-5-1980, it was his sweet will and this is a case of wilful absence on the part of the appellant. He cannot blame others for his own fault. It has also been pointed out by the learned District Attorney that the same objection was raised by the appellant himself when he appeared before the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Authorized Officer, Director Education (Colleges) Multan Division, Multan. The Enquiry Officer discussed this issue with the appellant with reference to the relevant rules, record and the appellant himself agreed and participated in the proceedings of the enquiry. Thus, the appellant has himself admitted the validity of the appointment of the said Authorized Officer and the Enquiry Officer. Thus, stand of the appellant about the velidity of the Authoried Officer at this belated stage is uncalled for and is mischievous.
Concluding his arguments the learned District Attorney has submitted that valid and lawful Authorized Officer has been appointed in this case as per the Punjab Civil Servants (E &D) Rules, 1975, the objection of the appellant being without valid grounds be over-ruled and has prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record in this case. We find that the appellant was relieved from his previous post in the F.C.
College Lahore on 20-5-1980 by the Principal, Government F.C. College, Lahore to join at Multan.
The appellant failed to do so and absented wilfully. We also find that his leave applications were forwarded through the Director, Public Instruction, Punjab, Lahore to the Director of Education (Colleges) Multan Division, Multan. Thus, this fact is established that the appellant fell under the administrative control of Director of Education (Colleges) Multan after. 20-5-1980. We cannot remain oblivious of this fact that this very objection about the validity of the appointment of authorized officer was raised by the appellant before the Enquiry Officer. After discussion, referring to rules and record, the appellant himself agreed to participate in the enquiry. Thus, he accepted the validity of the "Authorized Officer" and the "Enquiry Officer" by participating in the enquiry proceedings. This fact has been verified by us from the record in the presence of the appellant/appellant's counsel at the time of arguments of this case. Hence raising of this issue about the validity of Authorized Officer at belated stage is just to delay the proceedings being conducted against the appellant, for his wilful absence from duty, without any solid grounds. We have also gone through our earlier judgment, so relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, in Case No,533/1966 of 1982, Mansur Ali Khan v. The Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Education Department etc. And find that this case of the appellant is quite distinguishable from that case.
7. The upshot of the above analysis is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.
' There will be no order as to costs.