1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This appeal, by leave of this Court, is directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 13-3-1984, whereby, while upholding the order of the respondent's compulsory retirement from service, the Tribunal directed payment of full pay and allowances including the increments to the respondent for the entire period he remained under suspension till the date of his compulsory retirement. The Tribunal held that as the order of suspension was passed by the Auditor-General, who was not the competent authority in the relevant respect, the order of suspension passed by him was without lawful authority.
2. Leave was granted by this Court as the learned Standing Counsel of the Federal Government produced before the Petition Bench a copy of the order of suspension wherein it was stated that the Auditor-General (Authorised Officer) who had issued the order of suspension had done so with the approval of the Authority. It was observed that as the Tribunal has failed to notice this aspect of the matter, the case required further consideration.
3. The respondent was a District Accounts Officer-II, Bahawalpur. He sanctioned and released for disbursement of the large amount of Rs.2,76,95,377 without proper authorisation, in the year 1977.
4. He was, therefore, placed under suspension by the order of the Auditor-General dated 31-5-1977 and ultimately retired compulsorily from service on 16-8-1982 under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The respondent challenged the order of retirement by filing an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal but although the learned Tribunal refused to interfere with the order of the compulsory retirement but it found that the order of suspension dated 30-5- 1977 was without lawful authority and ordered that the respondent be paid the pay and allowances during the period of suspension, namely, from 30-5-1977 upto 16-8-1982 observing:- "The learned State Counsel condeded that the Auditor-General was not the authorised officer while the suspension was ordered, charge-sheet issue and the inquiry instituted. He stated, however, that the Auditor-General had been designated as the authorised officer before the show-cause notice, dated 21-5-1981 was served."
5. (Underlining is ours)
6. It was further conceded before us that no fresh order of suspension was passed by theAuditor- General after he was designated as the authorised officer on 21-5-1981. However, the learned Deputy Attorney-General drew our attention today to the office order of the Accountant-General to show that the Auditor-General was competent to pass the order of suspension. This order is reproduced hereunder:- "OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL, PUNJAB, LAHORE D.O.No.Discip/3-506/1234 Dt. 31-5-1977 OFFICE ORDER The Auditor-General of Pakistan (Authorised Officer) has with the approval of the 'Authority' placed Kh. Imtiaz Muhammad District Accounts Officer-II, Bahawalpur under suspension with effect from 30-5-1977 (F . N) .
2. During suspension he will be paid one half of his pay an subsistence grant.
7. (. Sd.)Accountant-General Dated: 31-5-1977".
8. It is admitted before us that this document was not produced before the Service Tribunal. On the other hand we find that it was conceded before it that while ordering suspension of the respondent the Auditor-General was not the Authorised Officer. The same position was taken before the High Court in connection with a writ petition (W.P.No.464-S/81) filed by the respondent to challenge the action taken against him. Paragraph 9 of the comments submitted by the Auditor-General was to the following effect:-- "As a result of examination of the issue raised in Writ Petition No.2674-S of 1979, Muhammad Iqbal v.
9. Auditor-General of Pakistan, it was detected that the Auditor-General had not been duly authorised by the Authority to perform the functions of the authorised officer under the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973. In view of this, the action of the Auditor-General in issuing the charge-sheet to the petitioner and proposing the imposition of penalty on him was rendered void in the eyes of law. Consequently, fresh orders were obtained from the Authority and notified in February 1981 authorising the Auditor-General to perform the functions of the 'Authorised Officer' for the purposes of the 1973 Rules and the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were initiated de novo by issuing a show-cause notice to him."
10. However, as already observed, no fresh order of suspension was issued even after 1981.
11. Be that as it may, this Court in Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Safdar Mahmood PLD 1983 SC 100 has held that all proper material should be placed before the Tribunal by the departmental authority and the order of the Tribunal cannot be challenged on the basis of fresh materials produced before this Court. In this connection, it was observed:- "We regret to say that the administration has not so far properly grasped the position, status and the authority of the Service Tribunal to which the civil servants now take recourse with respect to their grievances. The proceedings before them, we have noticed, are taken very lightly by the departmental authorities and their representatives do not care to place all the relevant facts and material before it and the quality of representation on its behalf also leaves much to be desired.
12. The deficiencies that occur before the Service Tribunal are tried to be filled up before this Court and sometimes even a new case attempted to be raised before it. However, in view of the legal position explained above, namely, that the Service Tribunal is visualised as the exclusive authority to determine all questions, specially those of facts, in case of alleged violation of the terms and cc editions of persons in the service of Pakistan and this Court vis-a-vis it is not an appellate Court in the normal sense but an authority exercising jurisdiction to interfere only in those cases wherein substantial questions of law of public importance are involved; this is not possible."
13. Thus, the Office Order sought to be relied upon before us, whereby a totally new case before this Court is sought to be made, cannot be taken into consideration by us to upset the order of the Service) Tribunal which was fully justified on the basis of the materials placed and the pleas/ submissions raised before it.
14. We, therefore, find that the order of the Service Tribunal holding that the order of suspension was illegal and that, therefore, the respondent was entitled to the full pay and allowances during the period of his suspension, does not require interference.
15. This appeal, accordingly, fails and is dismissed hereby, but with no order as to costs.