' MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN (MEMBER),-The appellant while posted in the University Grants Commission on deputation was appointed as Vice-Principal, on deputation for a period of three years in the Dawood College of Engineering and Technology, Karachi vide order dated 7-9-1995.
The order of appointment was to take effect from 24-4-1995. He reported for duty and assumed the charge on the same day i,e,, 7-9-1995. Just after one month thereafter another office order was issued on 9-10-1995 whereby the payment of emoluments and benefits, for the periodlling prior to joining the said College i,e, 24-4-1995 to 6-9-1995, were ordered to be withdrawn and recovered.
Departmental appeal was filed on 15-10-1995. A similar corrigendum was also issued by the respondent college on 14-101995 which was again challenged in a departmental appeal dated 19- 101995. The salary for the month of October, 1995 (Payable in November, 1995) was withheld and so third departmental appeal was filed on 18-111995. Vide an order, dated 18-11-1995 he was relieved of his duties. The following day another order was issued whereby the appellant was dismissed from service. Departmental appeal was filed on 20-11-1995 against both the said orders. All these orders have been challenged in this service appeal filed on 6-7-1996 as none of the departmental appeals could be decided within the prescribed period of ninety days.
2. The respondent No,1 admitted the entire contents of memorandum of appeal vide his written objection dated 6-7-1996. However, vide comments filed on 31-7-1996, the earlier comments were withdrawn on the ground that Mr. Abdul Razzaque Memon was not the principal of the college to take any decision or to persue the litigation. In these fresh comments it was alleged that the appellant assumed the charge w,e,f, 7-9-1995 and was; therefore, entitled for the emoluments etc. From the said date and order for payment of salary with retrospective date i,e, 24-4-1995 was result of collusion with the former principal. It was also alleged therein that the Competent Authority being the Chairman, Board of Governors directed the respondent College to relieve the appellant from duty but the principal instead of relieving him, issued orders of dismissal from service inadvertently.
3. There are two aspects of the case i,e, the effect of termination of deputation and the validity of order for recovery of dues paid for 24-4-1995 to 6-9-1995. With regard to the first matter relating to deputation, the appellant argues that:- Firstly that the deputation was for a period of three years and its premature termination was not warranted by law.
Secondly that the borrowing authority cannot pass the order of dismissal of a deputationist.
Thirdly that the deputation is terminated by the order of repatriation and not by relieving or dismissal: Lastly that the borrowing authority cannot repatriate a deputionist except with the concurrence of the lending authority.
4. With regard to the first issue raised by the appellant we observe that although the period of deputation is fixed at three years, extendable by a further period of two years but thereby the maximum limit of deputation has been prescribed and not the minimum one. There is neither any provision nor precedent that a deputationist could not be repatriated prior to the agreed period of three years. Deputation does not invest a right in the deputationist to demand his retention by the borrowing authority for the prescribed period rather it is a stop-gap arrangement to fill in certain vacancies by borrowed officers till the availability of regular ones. It, therefore, follows that the deputationist is the administrative arrangement between the borrowing and lending departments, and thus, the deputationist has no say in the matter .Except that his terms with the borrowing agency should not be less favourable than in the parent department.
5. It is a fact that the borrowing agency cannot impose any penalty, on a doputationist, muchless of his dismissal from service. The order intimating dismissal was certainly illegal and without jurisdiction, however, as stated in the comments the said term of "dismissal" was used inadvertently and it was immediately corrected into the order of relieving.
6. The contention of the appellant that he should have been repatriated instead of being relieved is not acceptable because by passing the order of relieve from duty it was intended that his services were no more required by the borrowing authority, therefore, instead of fighting on technicalities, he should have straightaway reported to his parent department, If he now relies on the dictionary meaning of the term "relieve" to show its distinction from repatriation, he should also find out the dictionary meaning of the term "revert" mentioned in the original order of appointment as Vice- Principal on deputation. A Civil Servant is not supposed to become a professional litigant to find minute technicalities to avoid the order not acceptable to him. He should not correct the vocabulary of the administration rather he should honour the orders of his superiors by each possible interpretation befitting the code of conduct for civil service. Thus, we hold that the order of dismissal from service was illegal and without jurisdiction, however, the order of relieving from duty amounted to his repatriation which was legal, proper and should have been honoured by the appellant. The learned Counsel for the respondents also -stated that the order of the respondent No,1 dated 19-11-1995 was corrected the same day into relieving from duty.
7. The last contention of the appellant is also devoid of Tome that the repatriation was not with the concurrence of the lending authority. It is apparent from the record that the appointment of the appellant was notified under the orders of the Minister of Education, who was also the Chairman, Board of Governors of the said college and copy thereof was endorsed to the Federal Secretary, Eduction Division, Islamabad, whereas the impugned orders of dismissal and relieving were also addressed to all the concerned authorities in the Education Division and moreover there is an order dated 15-11-1995 wherein the. Respondent No,1 has been informed that the Federal Minister for Education/Controlling Authority, DCET has directed that the services of Mr. Abdul Rehman Shaikh Vice-Principal, DCET are no longer required, hence he should be relieved from service with immediate effect. Thus, the repatriation was ordered with the consent of the Federal Minister in his dual capacity as the head of the parent department and the Chairman, Board of Governors of the borrowing authority.
8. So far as recovery of the emoluments for the period from 24-4-1995 to 6-9-1995 is concerned we hold that the right had accrued to the appellant under a legal and valid order of the respondent No, 1 and the said order has already been implemented, thus, recovery of such as amount which is already disbursed cannot be affected.
9. In the light of the above discussion were partially accept this appeal, set aside the orders dated 9-10-1995 (for the recovery of the amount paid for the period from 24-4-1995 to 6-9-1995) and dated 19-11-1995 (intimating the dismissal of the appellant from service) and direct that the appellant shall report to the parent organisation immediately as per relieving orders dated 18-11- 1995 and 19-11-1995 amounting to his repatriation. The respondents Nos, 1 and 2 shall pay the salary to the appellant for the period upto 19-11-1995 and the question of emoluments for the period 20-11- 1995 till he actually reports to the parent department shall be decided by the respondents Nos, 3 and 4 in the light of our observation in this judgment. The rest of the prayer in appeal is dismissed.
10. No order as to costs.
11.. Parties be informed.
' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).--I agree with my learned brother Mr. Muhammad Raza Khan, Member and would like to add that the appellant in. Para. 2 of the prayer clause has requested that the order dated 7-9-1995 whereby he was sent on deputation may be restored, meaning thereby that he should continue as Vice-Principal, Dawood Engineering College. It is regretted to observe that we are not getting assistance from the Ministry of Education in such an important and complicated matter, as there was no appearance on behalf of the Ministry of Education at the time of regular hearing, as happened in the past also. The appellant is originally employee of the Islamabad Model Colleges under the administrative control of the Federal Directorate of Education. He was transferred from Islamabad Model College to Sindh Madressah as Principal, for the reasons best known. He was again sent to the University Grants Commission for three years where he did not complete his tenure and was once again deputed as Vice-Principal of Dawood Engineering College. All the three organisations are autonomous bodies being run by the Board of Governors, and even the Islamabad Model Colleges under the Board of Governors were autonomous bodies prior to the pronouncement by the Supreme Court in the case of Miss Naeema Khan (PLD 1990 SC 612) whereby its employees were declared 'civil servants' and the appellant's deputation from an autonomous body to the other autonomous body throughout this period should have been regulated by the Ministry of Education which factor is missing in this case. It is also not clear that under what circumstances the appellant without completing one tenure in an autonomous body went to another autonomous organisation; and whether these orders were passed in accordance with law, for which we have not been given any plausible explanation or assistance from the Ministry of Education as there was no representation at the time of regular hearing of the appeal. The appellant has not come forward with clean hands by not giving real facts and to under what circumstances he joined those posts and finally in this appeal he has insisted that his order regarding deputation as Vice-Principal, Dawood Engineering College be restored. All these questions are required to be examined. After the pronouncement in the case of Miss Naeema Khan (PLD 1990 SC 612), the appellant has been sdeclared civil servant and is to be governed by the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the rules made thereunder, and the employees of the Islamabad Model Colleges can seek redressal by filing service appeals before this Tribunal. We are not inclined to accept his prayer and allow him to remain as Vice-Principal, Dawood Engineering College on deputation when borrowing department has relieved him as such he may, if so desired, report to the parent department, i,e, Ministry of Education for further orders, and the Ministry of Education to pass appropriate order according to law.