The appellant Murid Hussain, Block Officer, Forest Department, Jatoi Range, District Muzaffargarh made successive complaints of illegal feelings against Murid Hussain, Forest Guard, Beat No. 111, Kotla Isan Block whereupon a checking party was deputed to assess the loss and determine the liability. He made a report on 1-11-1990 recording a finding that tree numbering 690 valuing Rs.90,150 (Anttexure 'E') were illegally felled with the consent and connivance of the aforesaid Forest Guard whose transfer from the place was essential.
2. On receipt of the report, respondent No. 1 (Division Forest Officer) called explanation not only of the Forest Guard but also of the appellant who of course submitted that he lost no the in reporting the loss to higher ups and recording it in his inspection diaries. The Divisional Forest Officer, however, served the appellant with a charge-sheet -dated 25-12-1990 indicating that he and the Forest Guard both were responsible for illicit cutting of 690 trees. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to determine the charge, and he in his report dated 27-4-1991 (Annexure 'H') held him guilty.
Agreeing with the inquiry report, respondent No. 1 allegedly without considering the evidence on the point, imposed upon him the penalties of (i) recovery of Rs.45,075 to be effected at the rate of 1 /3 of his monthly salary, and (ii) censure vide his order' dated 2-3-1992 (Annexure '1').
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he preferred a departmental appeal before respondent No. 2, Conservator of Forest, who dismissed it as per his order dated 12-6-1993. Finally, he brought the instant appeal.
4. It was urged in support of the appeal that under rule 2.7, Chapter-II of the Forest Manual, the appellant as a Forester was supposed only to detect and compound forest offences in which duty he never defaulted inasmuch as he detected the impugned loss, recorded them in his various reports as well as inspection diaries and that, thereby he was absolved of any liability for the losses in question. Secondly, he submitted that the inquiry report was based on no evidence; thirdly that no Authorised Officer was appointed in the case vitiating the entire proceedings; fourthly that the appellate order was non-- speaking, and lastly that no copy of the inquiry report was furnished to him.
5. The appeal was contested asserting that the appellant was involved in the illegal felling; that even earlier he was awarded similar punishments; that if he needed a copy of the inquiry report, he could have applied for it; and that otherwise he had fully participated in the proceedings. However, no specific answer was given in the comments to the precise assertion that no Authorised Officer was appointed in E&D proceedings conducted against the appellant.
6. It seems difficult to abridge the objection that no separate authorised officer was appointed in the case. The Divisional Forest Officer seemingly acted in both the capacities under rule 2(c), first proviso of P.C.S., E&D Rules, 1975. However, this Tribunal has been holding for long that if the P` authority acts as authorised officer then in a way it conduced itself to a comparatively lower status and in that it would at no more than the authorised officer could. In other words, the authorised officer while so acting could impose at best a minor penalty. Thus, the authority reducing itself to the level of authorised officer, will be able to impose only a similar minor penalty, and would not be competent to award a major penalty as was done in the instant case. Recovery is a major penalty, which the Divisional Forest officer (respondent) was legally not competent to award against the appellant. Reference may be made to 1994 PLC (C.S.) 477 in this regard. I see no reason to hold otherwise.
7. In the light of the foregoing, the appeal is allowed, the impugned 'order dated 2-3-1992 and 12-6- 1993 are set aside, the amount already recovered shall be refunded to the appellant. However, the respondents shall be free to conduct a de novo inquiry in accordance with the rules.