' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Muhammad Hussain respondent, permanent Way Inspector, (BPS-16) in Pakistan Railways was removed from service in consequence of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on certain charges of misconduct. Order of his removal was passed by Member, Mechanical Engineering, Pakistan Railways, a Grade-21 officer. Respondent challenged his removal in an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal accepted the appeal on the short ground that according to the relevant notification, General Manager (BPS-21) has been designated as 'Authority', in respect of Railway employees in BPS-16 while the impugned order has been passed by the Member, Mechanical Engineering, who is not an ' Authority' in the case of the respondent. The order of removal of the respondent was accordingly declared to be without lawful authority and the respondent reinstated in service.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners (General Manager, Pakistan Railways and two others) as also the learned counsel appearing for respondent No,
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the officer who at the relevant time was the General Manager had earlier issued the charge-sheet and the show-cause notice to the respondent as Divisional Superintendent being the authorised officer. He, therefore, did not want to pass the final order as 'Authority' and referred the case to the Secretary/Chairman, Railway Board for nominating some other officer for passing final orders in the matter. The Secretary/Chairman, Railway Board then nominated the Member, Mechanical Engineering, Pakistan Railways to pass final order in the disciplinary case of the respondent. It cannot, therefore, be said that the General Manager who was designated as ' Authority' had delegated his powers to the Member, Mechanical Engineering. In the submission of the learned counsel, in the peculiar circumstances, the officer nominated by the Chairman of the Railway Board was quite competent to pass the final order as 'Authority'. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that if for some reasons, the General Manager did not consider it appropriate to pass the final order as ' Authority', the matter should have been referred to the President for designating some other officer as 'Authority' in the case of the respondent which function could not be performed by the Chairman of the Railway Board.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the question as to whether Member, Mechanical Engineering was lawfully nominated as 'Authority' in the case of the respondent and consequently the order of removal of the respondent passed by him did not suffer from any want of authority/jurisdiction needs consideration. Leave is accordingly granted.
4. Operation of the impugned order of the Service Tribunal is suspended but it is directed that since only a short question is involved, the appeal after its completion may be fixed at an early date.