Muhammad Akram Ex-Patwari, Halqa of village Luqman, Tehsil and District Sargodha has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Saddar Sub-Division, Sargodha as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the orders, dated 22-8-1984 of the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Sadar Sub-Division, Sargodha and the order, dated 5-1-1985 of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha (Mr. Muhammad Azhar) while deciding the revision petitions filed by Mulazim Hussain etc. v. Lal and Mst.Mumtaz Begum v. Lal. Vide his order, dated 30-1-1984, observed that the impugned Mutation No. 230 was manoeuvred with the active connivance of the appellant Patwari Halqa. He, therefore, directed the A.C./Collector, Sargodha being the competent Authority to suspend the appellant for his illegal transfer of the landed property of Mst. Mumtaz Begum widow in favour of Lal and Shashu by way of sale Mutation No.230 of Village Luqman fraudulently. The appellant was placed under suspension by the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector Sadar Sub-Division, Sargodha vide his order, dated 18-2- 1984 and charge-sheet was framed against the appellant. The appellant was served with the charge-sheet on 25-2-1984 by the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Sadar Sub-Division, Sargodha. The details of the charge--sheet are at Annexure 'A' and statement of allegations is at Annexure A/1. The appellant submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 3-3-1984. Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad Khan, Magistrate 1st Class was appointed an Enquiry Officer in this case. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the A.C./Collector, Sadar Sub-Division, Sargodha (Authority) who heard the appellant in person and found the appellant guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from service, vide his order, dated 22-8-1984. The appellant made an appeal to the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha which was rejected vide order, dated 5-1-1985. Hence this appeal.
4. On the out set a legal objection was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has not been properly proceeded under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, as no authorised Officer was appointed in case of the appellant as required to be appointed under the ibid Rules. The Assistant Commissioner/ Collector acted as an authority as well as an authorised officer, in violation of the above rules and thus, the punishment awarded to the appellant is unlawful and be quashed. The appellant's counsel has relied on the order, dated 3-9-1984 of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division where in a similar Case No. 17 of 1984 of Ex- Patwari Safdar Ali, the Commissioner had set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, where no authorised Officer was appointed and the authority assumed the role and powers of the authorised Officer i.e., by the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Sargodha. The appellant's counsel has also referred to the appeal, dated 20-9-1984 of the appellant filed before the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha (Annexure ---F') and has submitted that the appellant had taken this plea before the Commissioner, that as no authorised Officer was appointed in his case, hence, the proceedings against the appellant as well as order of the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector was void but no notice of this legal objection was taken by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha while rejecting the appeal of the appellant. The appellant's counsel has further placed reliance upon the judgment of Muhammad Akram v. Secretary, Government of Pakistan, reported as 1977 PLC (C.S.T.) 81.
5. The learned Deputy Attorney asked to put up his view on the above legal objection of the learned counsel for the appellant but he could not successfully rebut the same.
6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case. The impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Sadar Sub- Division, Sargodha, dated 22-8-1984, clearly shows that no authorised Officer was appointed. I have also gone through the decision of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, announced on 3-9-1984 in Case No.17 of 1984 of Safdar Ali, Ex-Patwari, Halqa Chak No.127/N.B. Tehsil and District Sargodha which reads as follows:- "4. The perusal of the record shows that no authorised Officer was appointed in this case and the Authority assumed the role and powers of the authorised Officer. Khalid Masud and representative of the Advocate-General has referred to the guide book for departmental enquiries in Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 issued by the S&GA Department wherein on page 3 it has been clarified that in specified cases the Authority may also be authorised to act as authorised Officer. In the present case such an authorization enabling the Authority to act as Authorized Officer has not been made available. It is thus clear that the provisions of the rules were not fully met. The proceeding: thus were vitiated because of this irregularity. The impugned order, is, therefore, set aside the direction that de nova proceedings may be taken up against the official after appointing an authorised Officer."
The present case of the appellant is in all fours with the above decision of the Commissioner, Sagodha Division, Sargodha, as no authorised Officer was appointed by the Authority and thus, the impugned orders in case of the appellant cannot be sustained as being unlawful, and against the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975.
7. The upshot of the above discussion of the case is that the appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the competent authority to proceed afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, by appointing an Authorised Officer and conduct the proceedings afresh against the appellant from where the lacuna has occurred. The appellant is directed to be re-instated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant so that the authority can proceed against the appellant accordingly. The fate of the period for which the appellant remained out of service shall also be decided by the competent authority after proceeding de novo against the appellant as mentioned above.
There will be no order as to costs.
A. A