' ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).---Consequent upon the disciplinary proceeding against the appellant in which, he was alleged to have been found guilty on the charge to have parked Government vehicle unauthorisedly, the competent Authority imposed upon him the following penalties vide office Order No, 55, dated 12th January, 1993:-
(i) Cost of vehicle No, ADA-6963 (P/UP) (Hi-Lux) amounting to Rs,1,35,700 to be recovered from him.
(ii) Three stages lower in the existing time scale for three years.
2. The appellant submitted his appeal to the competent Authority on 26-1-1993 (i,e, General Manager), which was accepted by him and his penalty was, modified by reducing the recovery from Rs,1,35,700 to Rs,1,02,382 and lowering the accused three steps in his time scale for a period of three years without commulative effect vide order, dated 27th April, 1993.
3. Being still unsatisfied, the appellant submitted yet another appeal to the Member (Water) on 7- 6-1993. Subsequently according to the appellant his appeal was accepted and was called for personal hearing, in which the presence of the Chief Engineer as well as the General Manager, was also desired. He was heard on 3-4-1994 at 12-00 hrs. The Member (Water) WAPDA, according to the appellant, desired to know-how much weightage was given to the observation made in the enquiry report, and, to pinpoint the individuals responsible for the loss to WAPDA. Besides this, the Member (Water) WAPDA, according to appellant, ordered that no recovery should be made, till the finalisation of the case.
4. However, according to appellant no action was taken on the directions of WAPDA Member (Water), since he had been relieved of the post of the Chairman by the Government. And appellant's appeal submitted to the Member, on 7-6-1993 was rejected on 8-11-1995, without assigning any reason, and the said order was communicated to him on 2-12-1995. Hence this appeal.
5. Advocate Mr. Shah Abdur Rashid appeared on behalf of the appellant, the respondents were represented by Sh. Riaz-ul-Haq. The preliminary objections have also been filed on behalf of the respondents.
6. An important objection has been raised vide comments i,e, that appeal is hopelessly barred by time, hence liable to be dismissed. Moreover, according to the respondents no second appeal was competent.
7. Before we examine this issue of time limitation raised by the respondents vide comments, we will have to resolve another issue again raised by the respondents, with which the issue of limitation is very closely linked i,e, whether or not, the penalty so modified by the General Manager (WAPDA) was in order under the law. In other words, whether the General Manager was competent to modify the impugned order, as according to the appellant he was not.
8. The contention of the appellant was that the Chief Engineer, WAPDA was not competent to serve him with charge-sheet under sub-para. (3) of Rule 2 of Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Ex) Rules, 1978.
He can neither frame nor communicate the charge-sheet in terms of rule 6(1) ibid. Under the circumstance, the enquiry so conducted and order so passed imposing penalty upon the appellant cannot be sustained. It has further been argued that General Manager was in fact not the appellate Authority as contemplated under rule 11. According to the appellant, the appeal so submitted to the General Manager should have been forwarded to the Member (Water) WAPDA for decision.
9. This has on the other hand been controverted by the respondents. According to them, the Chief Engineer was competent Authority under the law, who after going through the gravity of the charge, awarded penalty to the appellant, in accordance with E&D Rules, 1978. And that appellant had rightly submitted his appeal to the General Manager, being the appellate Authority. It has been stressed with force that the General Manager and Project Director, T.D.P. Was the next higher authority and hence appellate authority under the law, who legally and correctly decided the appellant's appeal. In this regard he has produced the documents on the file.
10. We have perused the relevant document i,e, the document in respect of delegation of administrative powers, which reveals that the Chief Engineer is no only the appointing authority of Junior Engineers and officers of equivalen status (and the appellant belonging to the category of officers) but also the authority competent to impose penalty under the Government Servant (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. Under the circumstances, the penalt imposed by the Chief Engineer (Authority) and modified by the Gener Manager (appellate authority) was in order under the law. As such the appellant's argument that they were not competent either to impose the penalt or to modify it is not correct in the eye of law. Hence such argument is repelled The appeal submitted by the appellant against the penalty so imposed upon hi by the authority (Chief Engineer) itself was addressed to General Manager. I follows from this that the appellant knew who was the appellate authority, i.e why he addressed the appeal to. General Manager not to the Member (Water WAPDA, whom he. Now takes to be the appellate authority, may be to justify the submission of his next appeal, for which there is no provision in the law.
11. This second appeal was preferred to the Member (W) on 7-6-1993 which was rejected vide letter dated 8-11-1995 and communicated to the appellant on 2-12-1995 against which the appellant has filed the present appea before the Tribunal. The question arises, is it an appellate order? Since, neither the Member (Water) is the appellate Authority nor the second appeal lies under the law.
12. In fact, as discussed above, and clearly brought out, that the Chie Engineer was the authority who imposed the penalty upon the appellant, and the General Manager was the appellate authority, who modified, such a penalt order i,e, the Order No, 330 dated 27-4-1993.
13. From the above it follows that the only competent/appellate order was one which was issued by the General Manager who was the appellate authority i,e, issued on 27-4-1993 not the one issued on 8-11-1995 on behalf of the Member (Water) WAPDA, which has no legal force since Member (Water WAPDA is not appellate authority.
14. Under the circumstances, the time limitation will be calculated from the date the appellate order was passed by the competent Authority i,e, the General Manager and from 27-4-1993, the appellant, therefore, should have approache the Tribunal, within prescribed period of thirty days as held by lie Hon'ble Supreme Court- reported as Government of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division v. Bashir Ahmed Khan (PLD 1985 SC 309), which h did not. As such his appeal is hit by time limitation and not maintainable under the law.
15. The appellant has submitted a condonation application but he has argued on the same plank therein as discussed above i,e, the Member (Wate WAPDA was the appellate authority not the General Manager, hence his section order should be considered for counting the time for the purpose of citation which stand, we have already rejected above. Although the learned counsel for the appellant has cited a number of judgments nevertheless they are t relevant in the present case, because there is no infirmity in appellate order. e appellant has not given any cogent reason for such a belated delay in filing e appeal before the Tribunal against the competent appellate order.
16. So without going into the merit, of the case, we dismiss the appeal, in barred by time limitation with no order as to costs.
17. Parties be informed.