SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--Leave to appeal was granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution to the appellant, to examine the following questions of law arising in the case:- "(i) whether in the circumstances of this case the same person could act both as 'Authority' as well as 'Authorised Officer'? And
(ii) Whether the proceedings against the petitioner stand vitiated as a result of omission to supply him with a copy of the inquiry report?"
2. The appellant was employed in the Local Council Service, Administration Branch, in the N.P.S.11. He was working as Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, Mianwali when on 15-11-1976 the Commissioner of the Sargodha Division, his 'Appointing Authority' served him with a charge-sheet. He replied to the charges, denying all of them. An enquiry was ordered. As a result of the enquiry, the Commissioner served on him the final show-cause notice. He replied to it in writing. He was held guilty of the charges and reverted from LCS Class II Junior (NPS-11) to LCS Class III Senior (NPS-8) with immediate effect by order of the Commissioner dated 26-5-1979. He appealed to the Government but his appeal was rejected by the Government vide order dated 11th of June, 1980. He took his grievance to the Service Tribunal. One of the main grounds taken up was that as no 'Authorised Officer' had been appointed in terms of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of 1975, the 'Authority' could not itself initiate the proceedings and impose on him a major penalty of reduction in rank. This objection was disposed of by the Tribunal by holding as hereunder:- "As far as contention regarding the contravention of rules 5, 6 and 7 of Efficiency and Discipline Rules is concerned it is sufficient to say here that since the Commissioner is competent to award all punishments so much as even the extreme punishment of dismissal from service, which also includes minor punishments, so he is himself, the 'Authority' as well as the 'authorised Officer'. As such, the Commissioner has acted as an `authorised Officer' as well as 'authority' in the present case. We have already held that in the case of Muhammad Akram that members of Local Council Service from Grade 8 to Grade 11 are Civil Servants in a limited sense only for the purposes of Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 and the provisions of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 are not applicable to them. In this view of the matter we feel that the Efficiency and Discipline Rules 1975 were applied to the members of the LCS only by way of reference and not by their own force. As we have already held that the Commissioner had acted as an 'authority' as well as the `authorised Officer' so there is no violation of rules 5, 6 and 7 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 which we hold were observed during the enquiry proceedings."
' The second Objection noted in the Order granting leave, with regard to the non-supply of the Enquiry Report was also taken up and disposed of by the Tribunal with the following observations:-- "There is no provision in the rules that in an enquiry conducted under rule 6(2) of Efficiency and Discipline Rules, it is necessary to supply the Enquiry report to the accused. The accused was not prejudiced in his defence because all the evidence was recorded in his presence and he was allowed to cross-examine the same."
' Thereafter, the Tribunal examined the case on merits and dismissed the service appeal.
3. Ch. Hamiduddin, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of 1975 which have been applied to the Local Council Service employees, visualized two authorities, one empowered to inflict major punishment and the other empowered to inflict minor punishment. It is the latter Officer who has been further empowered to initiate departmental proceedings and determine in the first instance whether after enquiry the misconduct invites major punishment or minor punishment. That Authority can itself dispose of the mattter where minor penalty is imposed but not where major penalty is sought to be imposed. The case had to be submitted by him to the Authority. According to the learned counsel, as no authorised Officer had been designated, the Scheme of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of 1975 was not workable and the Commissioner notwithstanding being the competent authority to appoint and dismiss could not proceed in the manner in which he did. As regards the second contention, reliance has been placed on the case of Syed Mir Muhammad v. N.-W.F.P. Government through Chief Secretary (PLD 1981 SC 176) to urge that without supplying copy of the Enquiry Report the enquiry cannot be held to be in accordance with the rules applicable to the case.
4. Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, learned Assistant Advocate-General, has relied on an instruction of the Government, contained in the Punjab Local Government and Social Welfare Department's letter dated 22nd June, 1976 addressed to the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, informing him as hereunder:- "According to sub-rule (3) of rule 2 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, an officer competent to award major punishment has been designated as authority and an officer competent to award minor punishments as "authorised" officer. In case where the same officer is competent to award major as well as minor punishments, the same will act as authority and authorised officer."
' As regards the second contention, the learned Assistant Advocate-General stated that nowhere the rules require as a part of the procedure, the supply of the enquiry report. In order to distinguish the decision of Syed Mir Muhammad's case, it has been urged that as no prejudice has been caused to the appellant, the action taken cannot be successfully challenged by him.
5. A reference to the legal position existing at the stage when the action was initiated and completed against the appellant, would make the arguments more intelligible. On the 20th September, 1963, were enforced the West Pakistan Municipal Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules,1963. 'Authority' was defined in these Rules to mean the authority competent to appoint a municipal servant. The 'Authority' was empowered under Rule 10(2) to impose any of the penalties major as well as minor. On the 8th of October, 1963, were enforced the West Pakistan Local Councils and Municipal Committees Service Rules, 1963. `Appointing Authority' was defined herein as one specified in rule 7. Under rule 7 the Commissioner of the Division was the appointing authority of the appellant. Rules 17 and 19 of the West Pakistan Local Councils and Municipal Committees Service Rules, 1963 are of particular importance to the case and are reproduced hereunder:-
17. General Rules--In all matters not expressly provided for in these rules, members of the Service shall, on promulgation of the West Pakistan Civil Service Rules, be governed by them or by such general rules as may have been or may hereafter be prescribed by Government.
19. Delegation.--Subject to the provisions of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, and these rules, Government or the appointing authority may delegate any of its powers under these rules to any officer subordinate to it: ' Provided that no member of the Service shall be dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank by an authority subordinate to the authority by which he was appointed."
' On the 4th of July,1975, the following Notification was issued: "NO,LCS (ADMN)-3(28)/75-Policy.--In exercise of the powers conferred upon him under rule 17 of the West Pakistan Local Councils and Municipal Committees Service Rules, 1963, the Governor of the Punjab is pleased to prescribe that the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, as amended from time to time as applicable to Civil Servants, shall be applicable to all the Local Councils Service Officers/Officials in the Punjab with immediate effect.
' This department's Notification No, LCS (ENGG.j-5 (27)69-P.II, Provl: dated 6-10-1972 is hereby cancelled."
6. The Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 which were applied to the appellant on the strength of the notification just reproduced defined the "Authority" and the "Authorised Officer" in the following words:- "In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires- (a)
(b) "authority " means the Government or an officer or authority designated by it to exercise the powers of the authority under these rules:
(c) "authorised Officer" means an officer authorised to perform functions of an authorised officer under these rules: ' Provided that in relation to certain civil servants 'the authority' may be authorised to act as authorised Officer."
' Their functions are also defined in sub-rule (3) of rule 2 as hereunder:- "The various authorities empowered to award major punishments under the various Delegation of Powers Rules, shall, in respect of civil servants to whom they are competent to award major punishments, exercise the powers of "the authority" under these rules and the authorities empowered to award minor punishments under the said Delegation of Powers Rules are, in respect of the Civil Servants to whom they are competent to award minor punishment, authorised to exercise the powers of Authorised Officer' under these rules."
7. In the case of an incorporated law, the rule of interpretations is to place the incorporated law in the milieu of the laws existing on the subject and to give a harmonious and consistent meaning to all of them. Rules 17 and 19 of the Service Rules (reproduced above) remain intact and for that reason the Proviso to Rule 19 will hold the field. The action taken by the Commissioner will stand the test provided by this Proviso so far as the Objection to competency is concerned. As regards the specific procedure under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, the submission would have had some merit if there existed an Officer different from the Commissioner, authorized to inflict minor punishment. That being not the case and the Commissioner enjoying the exclusive powers of imposing both minor as well as major punishments, the exercise of powers by him is unexceptionable. This is not one of those situations where the entire law (Efficiency and Discipline Rules of 1975) fails because the Authorized Officer has not been designated. On that view of the matter, the proceedings taken by the competent authority, namely the Commissioner, were within his competence. If the argument be that till the 'authority' and the 'authorized Officer' are designated under 1975 Rules, no disciplinary enquiry can be held, even then Rule 19 (reproduced above) would protect the action and it is by reference to those Rules that the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of 1975 were incorporated. The Tribunal has, therefore, taken a correct view that in the case of an incorporated law, the requirement of rigidly following that incorporated law without adverting to the incorporating law, cannot be advanced as a correct rule of interpretation.
8. In the absence of a statutory provision entitling the officer facing a departmental enquiry to receive a copy of the enquiry report, the requirement of it can be only enforced on the ground of fairness and avoidance of prejudice to the officer concerned. In Syed Mir Muhammad's case, as a fact, it was held that non-supply of the enquiry report had materially prejudiced the officer. In this case the Tribunal has held as a fact that it has not prejudiced the officer. He had replied in detail to the show-cause notice and was also heard personally. There was no extraneous factor entering the evaluation of his guilt or otherwise.
9. In the circumstances, we find no merit in any of the propositions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal is dismissed. No order is made as to costs.