' SARDAR MUHAMMAD SAJAWAL KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 5-12-1985 of Secretary, Forests, Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad respondent No,2 by which the appellant was awarded punishment of censure alongwith permanent stoppage of one annual increment and the order dated 30-4-1989 of respondent No,1 by which the punishment of censure was dropped and stoppage of one increment for one year was withheld. The appellant Muhammad Afzal Tariq is Divisional Forests Officer, Mirpur and he has impleaded Azad Government through its Chief Secretary, Secretary Forests and the Chief Conservator of Forests of the Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad as respondents for seeking his relief against them.
2. The relevant facts as are contained in the memo of this appeal are that the appellant was served with a show-cause notice containing as many as ten baseless and unfounded allegations.
He submitted his reply to the said charge-sheet but the respondent No,3 without associating the appellant with the inquiry proceedings submitted his report to respondent No,2 for the stoppage of his one increment on permanent basis besides giving him a minor penalty of censure. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of punishment, the appellant brought a review petition before respondent No,1 which was partly accepted and the punishment of censure against the appellant was dropped leaving the stoppage of one increment intact. It is claimed by the appellant that the order of respondent No,1 was conveyed to the appellant on 10-6-1989 and as such the appeal brought by him at this forum is within time from the date of the communication of the impugned order. The appellant seeks reversal of the impugned order on the following points:-
(i) that the proceedings under Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as Efficiency and Discipline Rules), initiated against the appellant are bad in law. He was not afforded an opportunity to know about the charges, material and evidence on the basis of which the impugned order was made.
(ii) that the respondent No,2 has failed to supply him the details of the allegations brought against him and has adopted a complete departure from the relevant provisions of rules as were applicable in the case of appellant.
(iii) that the procedure followed by the Authorised Officer is discriminatory and does not justify penal action against the appellant who has not been given an opportunity of defending himself.
(iv) that it was necessary for the Authorised Officer to have adopted the procedure more akin to the norms of justice which would have facilitated the appellant sufficient opportunities to rebut the charges brought against him. But he was not associated with proper inquiry with the result that he remained unaware all about the evidence as was considered whilesassing the impugned order.
' Finally, it is prayed by the appellant that the impugned order be set aside.
3. The objections filed on behalf of the respondent Government are that a valid show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for submitting his reply to the charge-sheet. He was also allowed opportunity of personal hearing by the authorised Officer before the passing of the impugned order. The appeal is time-barred and is not maintainable at this forum on that account.
4. We have considered the arguments as were addressed at the Bar by the learned counsel of each party. We have also examined the record as was placed on the file alongwith the appeal.
Chapter III of Efficiency and Discipline Rules deals with inquiry proceedings and impositions of penalties upon the civil servants. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules provides that if an Authorised Officer does not feel necessary to have any inquiry conducted against an accused civil servant he shall inform the accused forthwith by an order in writing of the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and the grounds of the action and that the Authorised Officer shall give him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against that action within a period of 14 days from the date of the receipt of that order. In the instant case we find that a show-cause notice was served upon the appellant well in time and he was given a margin of more than 14 days for submitting his reply to the charge-sheet as was required under the Rules.
The requirement of Rule 6, sub-rule (3) of Efficiency and Discipline Rules is that it is for the Authorised Officer to decide whether an inquiry should be held or not to ascertain the truth of allegations brought against a civil servant. If he does not consider an inquiry to be necessary in the matter, he is competent to dispense with the inquiry proceedings and proceed against the civil servant under Rule VI, sub-rule (iv) of the said Rules. The Authorised Officer was himself competent to impose minor penalty upon the appellant but here the situation is very different. As per Government Notification No,S&GAD/R-80/80-1/17465-64-9/79 issued on 17-10-1979 a copy of which is placed on the file, the Designated Officer to be the Authorised Officer of the Forests Department in case of the Forest Officers of that Department placed in Pay Scale Nos.17 and 18 is Chief Conservator of Forests and not the Secretary Forests and the authority competent to take disciplinary action against them is Chief Executive or Prime Minister. But it is strange enough, that in the instant case the Secretary Forests without following the relevant Government Notification referred to has himself acted as Authorised Officer instead of Chief Conservator of Forests whereas he held no powers to act like that and make the impugned order. There is, no doubt, in it that the impugned order has been made without jurisdiction by the Secretary Forests and on that account the same is not maintainable.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that we allow this appeal and after setting aside the impugned order remand the case to the authority for fresh proceedings against the appellant if advised in accordance with law and rule of procedure. We make no order as to the costs.