' NAZIR AHMAD BHATTI, J.--The facts of this writ petition are very simple and uncontroverted. The petitioner Nasir All joined service of the Agricultural Development Authority, respondent, in the year 1968. In the year 1981 he was transferred to Chitral. His marriage had to take place in February, 1982 for which he applied for two months leave through application dated 26-12-1981. He had to attend a meeting at Mardan in the end of December, 1981 whereafter he proceeded on leave. After the expiry of the said leave he joined his duty on 2-3-1982. However, he was served with a charge- sheet dated 25-5-1982 whereby he was charged for absence from duty from 19-1-1982 to 2-3-1982 and from 19-3-1982 to 2-4-1982. He was also charged for neglecting to obey the order of handing over the charge of his duties during April 1982. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet but however he was dismissed from service by order dated 6-6-1982. The petitioner submitted an appeal on 6-7-1982 but did not get any reply in spite of giving reminders on 13-12-1982, 9-3-1983, 22-12-1983, 22-10-1985, 24-11-1985, 21-12-1985 and 9-1-1986. However, the respondent rejected his appeal on 21-1-1986 whereafter the petitioner first preferred an appeal before the Service Tribunal N.-W.F.P. Which was rejected on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter the petitioner challenged the order of his dismissal by the writ petition in hand on the ground that the said order was illegal, mala fide, ultra vires, without lawful authority and being of no legal effect.
2. The respondent submitted his comments from which it transpired that the petitioner had remained absent from duty without any proper leave and for that matter he was proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of the Agricultural Development Authority and the impugned action was taken properly in accordance with the Rules.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the latter was allowed oral permission of leave by his superior officer. It was also contended by him that the impugned action of the respondent was taken without lawful authority.
4. In so far as the point of grant of leave is concerned that was a question of fact which had to be settled by the respondent and the same cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. However, it is a fact that the petitioner had not received any written order of grant of leave and this circumstance has been admitted by him.
5. In so far as the second point is concerned the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after receipt of reply of the petitioner to the charge-sheet no proper enquiry was held and the impugned action was taken against him without recording any evidence.
6. We have very carefully considered this aspect of the matter. The N.-W.F.P. Agricultrual Development Authority was created by N.-W.F.P. Ordinance No,1 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) promulgated on 29th March, 1980. The Ordinance has provided under section 3 for the establishment of an Agricultural Development Authority and under section 20 of the Ordinance the Authority, with the approval of Government, has been conferred with the powers to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Ordinance. In pursuance of the aforesaid provisions the Authority has made Rules regarding efficiency and discipline. According to the aforesaid Rules if an employee of the Agricultural Development Authority is accusecd of any misconduct then charge- sheet has to be framed and communicated to him. The employee is then asked to submit reply thereto within 7 to 14 days and if the competent authority considers that there is any need for an enquiry then it may appoint an Enquiry Officer who shall record evidence regarding the allegations and give opportunity to the accused employee to cross-examine witnesses and to produce defence evidence. The competent authority then after considering the report of the enquiry is competent to impose any penalty provided in the Rules upon the accused. The procedure of enquiry is specified in Rule 8 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The minute perusal of the procedure would show that it is somewhat different than the procedure provided for conducting of enquiry against civil servants. In the Efficiency and Discipline Rules applicable to civil servants there are two methods of disciplinary action against an employee accused of misconduct. Firstly, there is the procedure of show-cause notice whereby the competent authority may adopt the simple procedure of show-cause notice if in its opinion there is no need of conducting an enquiry. When this method is adopted then a show-cause notice is to be given to the employee and after receiving his reply and after giving him an opportunity of being heard in person any penalty can be imposed upon the employee. In the second method when the competent authority is of the opinion that a proper enquiry should be held against the employee accused of misconduct then firstly a charge sheet is to be given to him and on receipt of his reply an Enquiry Officer is to be appointed who has to record evidence and defence of the defendant and then submit report to the competent authority and on receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer the competent authority after giving the employee on opportunity of being heard can pass any penalty provided by the Rules. However, in the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of the Agricultural Development Authority there is provision for only one method of taking disciplinary action against an employee accused of misconduct. That procedure is that the employee is to be given a charge-sheet, he has to submit a reply within 7 to 14 days and thereupon if the competent authority is of the further opinion that proper enquiry should be held then an Enquiry Officer is to be appointed who has to record evidence and defence evidence of the accused employee and then submit his report to the competent authority which may impose any of the penalties provided by the rules. Otherwise the competent authority can take action against an accused employee after he has submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and has been given an opportunity of being heard.
7. The record will clearly indicate that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet and his reply was obtained and he was personally heard. Thereafter the competent authority by the order impugned in this writ him from service. The competent authority did not consider the necessity of conducting enquiry for the reason that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner had been accepted by him and his only contention was that he was allowed oral permission and he had also pleaded for mercy. It shall thus be seen that the petitioner had admitted his guilt and he had only prayed for mercy to be shown to him. In such a case there was no need to hold an enquiry after receipt of reply from the petitioner to the charge-sheet.
8. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid circumstances we are of the opinion that the respondent appropriately proceeded in the matter and rightly dispensed with the holding of a formal enquiry for the reason that the charge was not denied by the petitioner, as he had not denied his absence from duty for the period specified in the charge-sheet. The respondent had the jurisdiction under the Ordinance and the rules made thereunder to adopt the course of action provided in the rules and we cannot accept the plea that it was either mala fide or taken without any lawful authority. There is no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs.