1. SAAD SAOOD JAN (CHAIRMAN).-The relevant facts of the case are that M. Ghulam Rasool appellant who was a Sub-Inspector of Police at the relevant time was sent to serve on deputation to what was East Pakistan at that time. The appellant was, however, promoted to officiate in the rank of Inspector of police vide order of I. G. Police Punjab dated 18-6-1971. The said orders of promotion were communicated to the Inspector General of Police, East Pakistan, Dacca, and were duly acted upon. While the appellant was posted as Inspector, Police in Bogra District in East Pakistan, the impugned orders of his reversion to his substantive rank of Sub-Inspector were passed by A. I. G. Coordination signing on behalf of I. G., Police, East Pakistan. The issuance of these orders was followed by the fall of Dacca and the taking over of appellant along with a large number of other West Pakistan nationals as prisoners of war. Appellant was placed as P. O. W. in Camp No. 55 at Dhansagar, India. In the list of P. O. Ws. he was shown at serial number 1 in the rank of Inspector, Police.
2. After repatriation to Pakistan the appellant applied for two months leave showing himself in the rank of Inspector, Police which leave was duly sanctioned. The appellant later applied for 15 days extension in leave to the inspector General of Police Punjab which was the competent authority for sanctioning such leave to the Police Officers in the rank of Inspector. The said application was, however, passed on by I. G. Police to D. I. G. Police, Multan Range for disposal, endorsing a copy thereof to the appellant inviting his attention to an earlier memorandum of the I. G., Police dated 19-4.1974 and stating that: "He should please note that he is a Sub-Inspector and not Inspector, Police. He should address leave application to the D. I. G. Police, Multan Range, Multan in future."
3. These orders are also impugned by the appellant before us.
4. Objections have been filed by the I. G. Police and S. P., Multan. The case has been argued before us on behalf of the respondent by Mr. A. G. Humayun,. Learned counsel for the respondent has conceded before us that notwithstanding certain assertions made to the contrary in the objections filed by the I. G. Police and S. P. Multan, it is a fact that the West Pakistan Government had not issued any orders of reversion of the appellant from the rank of Officiating Inspector to his substantive rank of Sub-Inspector Police, while he was on deputation to East Pakistan and that the sole reason for considering the appellant demoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector is the A. I. G. Co- ordination East Pakistan's impugned order of 19-11-1971.
5. The appellant was admittedly an employee of West Pakistan Government, and was seconded to serve on deputation in East Pakistan and his orders of promotion were issued by the competent authority of his Parent Department that is D. I.-G. Multan Range. Learned counsel for appellant has drawn our attention to rule 13(a) of the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, which it would be advantageous to reproduce below: "13-A.--(1) Where the services of a Government servant to whom these rules apply are lent to any other Government or a local or other authority, in this rule referred to as the borrowing authority, the borrowing authority shall have the powers of the authority for the purpose of placing him under suspension and of initiating proceeding against him under these rules: Provided that the borrowing authority shall forthwith inform the authority which had lent his services, hereinafter in this rule referred to as the lending authority, of the circumstances leading to the order of his sus--pension or the commencement of the proceedings, as the case may be Provided further that the borrowing authority shall obtain prior approval of the Governor before taking any action under this rule against a member of Class 1 service or a holder of a Class I post.
(2) In the light of the findings in the proceedings taken against the Government servant in terms of sub-rule (1) if the borrowing authority is of opinion that any of the penalties specified in rule 4 should be imposed on him, it shall transmit to the lending authority the record of the proceedings and thereupon the lending authority may, if it is the authority, pass such orders there on as it deems necessary or, if it is not the authority, submit the case to the authority which shall pass such orders on the case as it deems necessary.
(3) The authority may make an order under this rule on the record of the inquiry transmitted by the borrowing authority or after holding such further inquiry as it may deem necessary and in passing such orders, shall comply with the provisions of sub-rule (5) of rule 6-A and rule 10."
6. The above rule clearly indicates that the borrowing authority (which is the Government of the then East Pakistan) has the powers of the competent authority only for the purposes of placing the appellant under suspension and of initiating proceedings against him under E&D Rules, provided it informed the lending authority of the circumstances leading to such proceedings. The above rule also requires that in case the borrowing authority reaches a conclusion that the circumstance of the case require imposition of any penalty under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules it shall transmit the record of pro--ceedings to the lending authority for passing such orders thereon by the com-- petent authority as it deems necessary. We find that the proceedings in this case have been manifestly in violation of the above-mentioned rule of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The borrowing authority in the instant case has of its passed a penal order reverting the appellant without recourse to the procedure prescribed under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules in such case. The orders of A. I. G. Coordination dated 19-11-1971 is therefore void ab initio and of no; effect.
7. Similarly the later orders dated 19-4-1974 of the I: G. Police, based upon the aforesaid void order are also void and of no effect. In the result the orders of Inspector General, Police treating the appellant as demoted to the substantive rank of Sub-Inspector are set aside and the appeal is accepted, with no orders as to cost.