MIAN FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER).--Rana Munir Ahmad Khan, has filed this appeal a/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Government of Punjab, through Secretary Housing Physical & Environmental Planning, Lahore, Director General Multan Development Authority, Multan, and Director Administration & Co-ordination Multan Development Authority, Multan, as respondents.
2. Through this appeal, the appellant Rana Munir Ahmad Khan has prayed that the impugned orders dated 20-5-1984, issued by the Director Administration and Co-ordination, Multan Development Authority, Multan, vide which the appellant was dismissed from service w.e.f. 15-5- 1979 and 'impugned order dated 17-9-1984, vide which the Director General/ Appellate Authority reduced the penalty of dismissal from service to that of removal from service, be set aside, and the appellant be re-instated in the service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that after consideration of the report of the Inquiry Officer, the authorized officer determined that the following charges stood proved against the appellant:-
(a) "that you (Appellant) had absented yourself from duty without sanction of leave for the period from 15 May, 1979 today:
(b) that you had obtained admission in Engg. University without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority.
(c) that you had failed to respond to the correspondence respecting the above charges."
The appellant was given opportunity of personal hearing and to produce additional defence, if any, by the Director Administration/ Authority, and after personal-hearing the appellant, was issued orders dated 20-5-1984, regarding dismissal of the appellant w.e.f. 15-5-1979. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed departmental appeal which was dismissed by the Director General, Multan Development Authority, vide orders dated 17-9-84 while converting the penalty of dismissal to removal from service. Hence this appeal.
4. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that no Inquiry Officer was appointed. Further more no charge sheet was framed, nor any opportunity to defend, was granted to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant also stated that the Director Administration (respondent No.3) and Director General, Multan Development Authority (respondent No. 2), were respectively not competent to proceed against the appellant in capacity of authority and appellate authority. The learned counsel for the appellant concluded his arguments while stating that the appellant was never conveyed regarding refusal of leave and therefore he left his duties on presumption that the leave was granted.
5. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the appellant was transferred to Multan Development Authority on 1st January, 1977 and he had no lien in Public Health Engineering Deptt. The learned District Attorney added that without obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' from Multan Development Authority, the appellant sought admission in the Engineering University, Lahore, which was breach of service discipline. The learned District Attorney stressed that the appellant submitted an application for leave and without waiting the orders regarding sanction or rejection o= the leave, left the service to join the University. In spite of being advised to resume duty immediately, the appellant did not pay any attention. The learned District Attorney closed his arguments while stating that notice of absence of the appellant was published in the daily 'Nawa-i-Waqt' dated 4-10-1979 that the appellant should resume his duty within a week, failing which disciplinary action would be conducted and ultimately after completion of necessary formalities and confession of the guilt of the appellant, the impugned order of dismissal from service was issued by the authority which was converted to penalty of removal from the service on departmental appeal
6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney for the respondents. We have also consulted the record including the departmental comments. We are of the considered opinion that undisputedly the appellant is employee of Public Health Engineering Department and he was serving with the Multan Development Authority on deputation. There were two options open for the Multan Development Authority for conducting disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. The one option was that the disciplinary proceedings may have been initiated and completed till the stage of infliction of the penalty. If the Authorised Officer was of the opinion that a minor penalty is to be inflicted over the appellant then he could inflict the penalty after giving a notice and opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. In the alternative if the Authorised Officer was of the view that major penalty should be inflicted then the case was to be submitted to the Borrowing Authority (M . D. A .)
If the Authority agreed with the Authorised Officer then the case should have been referred with h- is recommendations to the Loaning Authority (parent Department of the appellant) i.e. Public Health Engineering Department. The competent authority of the appellant of the Public Health Engineering Department on their part could consider the case for imposing major penalty against the appellant after issuing him the notice and opportunity of personal hearing.
7. Hence the case is remanded to the respondents (Multan Development Authority) to take action against the appellant to the extent of minor penalty within their powers. But in case they findthat the appellant is to be inflicted with major penalty, the case to be submitted to the parent Department of the appellant There are no order as to costs.
M.Y.H./103/Sr.P