The petitioner was serving as a Driver with the Civil Service Academy, Lahore. He was involved in an accident. The Academy decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. Accordingly he was served with a charge-sheet dated 5-10-1987. The petitioner submitted reply thereto. The same was considered and he was dismissed from service vide order dated 8-11-1987. The charge-sheet was issued by the Assistant Director while dismissal order was passed by the Deputy Director of the Academy. The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has assailed the charge-sheet and dismissal order. It is argued that neither charge-sheet was issued nor order of dismissal was passed by the competent authority. In this behalf the learned counsel has referred to Rule 22 of Service Rules of the Civil Services Academy, Lahore.
2. On the other hand, the petition is resisted by the respondents. It is argued on their behalf that the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief in view of long list of his lapses appended as Annexure 'I'. However, nothing has been commented as to the application of Rule 22.
3. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as Rule 22. Before proceeding any further it is relevant to refer to Rule 22 ibid which reads as under:-- "(1) The Academy employees shall be governed by the Federal Government Service (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 mutatis mutandis unless otherwise provided in the rules.
(2) The following officers shall be designated as Authority/Authorised Officer under the aforesaid rules in respect of the Academy Employees:- S.No. Seats of AcademyAuthority Authorised Officer employees 1 BPS 21 and 22 President/Chairman 2 BPS 17 and 20 Chairman Director- General 3 BPS-16 Director-General Director (Admn.)
4 BPS 5 and 15 Director (Admn.) Dy. Director (A)
5 BPS 1 to 4 Dy. Director (Admn.)Assistant Director
4. The petitioner was serving in BPS-5, therefore, according to this rule, Director (Administration) was his authority and while Deputy Director, (Administration) was his authorised officer. The admitted position on record is that the petitioner was charge-sheeted by Assistant Director whose name does not figure anywhere in the rule. Similarly order of dismissal was passed by the authorised officer, who is not competent to impose major penalty of dismissal. Therefore, the whole proceedings against the petitioner arc illegal.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the writ petition is allowed. The result is that disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are declared B illegal and without jurisdiction.
However, the Academy is at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. There is no order as to costs.