AKHTAR HASSAN (CHAIRMAN).---The appellant Muhammad Razaq was a Chowkidar in the Office of Divisional Forest Officer, Chakwal. He was removed from service vide order dated 26-10-1991 on the ground that he had earlier furnished a fictitious School Leaving Certificate showing him to be middle pass and his date of birth as 22-1-1954. On an anonymous complaint, the Department made a query from the concerned school as to whether (i) the appellant ha' 'actually been a student therein, and (ii) his date of birth was 22-1-1954. The Headmaster of the School wrote back that the appellant had not been a student of his school, nor had he issued the School Leaving Certificate produced by him. According to him, it was a fictitious and forged document.
2. On receipt of this information from the School, the Authority-cum-- Authorised Officer (D.F.O.) directed initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. As a result he was served with a show- cause notice dated 16-10-1991 (Annex: A) under Rule 6(3) of the E&D Rules requiring him to explain why he should not been punished for having produced a fictitious certificate. He contested the proceedings by denying the charge but the Authorised Officer repelled his defence, and acting himself as, Authority awarded him the major penalty of removal from service.
3. The point involved was typical, When the same Officer acts simultaneously as `Authority' as well as `Authorised Officer' the relevant rule purports to impose restrictions on his power in the matter of awarding penalty. How and to what extent can an Authorised Officer act, was made clear in the second proviso to rule 2(1)(c) of the E & D Rules, 1975. It reads:-- "Provided further that in relation to a civil servant, the `authority'- may be-authorised to act as authorised officer."
The key words are "to act as authorised officer".- Obviously it will have reference to his powers while acting in his capacity as "authorised officer" as contemplated in sub-rule (4) of rule 6 whereunder he could impose only a minor penalty. In other words, while acting as Authorised Officer, he could not himself award a major penalty for which conversely he had to submit the file to the Authority with his recommendations.
4. The scheme of the rules seems to lend support to this view mainly because it conceives considerable safeguards in favour of the accused before subjecting him to the extreme punishment of dismissal or removal from service. The action has to be initiated by the Authority by directing another officer (Authorised Officer) to proceed with it. The latter in his own place decides whether or not he should-look into the matter by holding a formal inquiry. The Inquiry Officer has to do his own bit by assessing evidence and making a report as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. It is sent to the Authorised Officer who again applies his mind to it to consider whether minor or major penalty was called for. In the latter event he forwards his recommendation to the Authority for appropriate orders
5. It will be noticed that many a step will have been completed well before inflicting a major penalty upon a civil servant. Proviso to Rule 2(1)(c) ibid cannot be construed to mean that all those safeguards will be curtailed by authorising the same officer to act as authority in awarding a major penalty. The other aspect calling attention was that the same officer while acting in these capacities will be more or less a prosecutor and a judge almost in his own cause. He initiates the proceedings partaking the status of a complainant or prosecutor and then he punishes the delinquent official assuming the role of a judge. The provisions in the rules to have an authorised office, and then an Inquiry Officer clearly perceived that some independent officer too should look into the matter in an objective manner. We would therefore hold that the same officer can act only to the extent an Authorised Officer could and no more.
6. The appeal is allowed. The major penalty of removal from service awarded to the appellant is converted into the minor penalty of stopping of his increments for two years without cumulative effect. The period of his absence will be determined by the department in accordance with the rules. It will also be open to the department to reconsider the point of (sic).