' MUHAMMAD ASLAM AVAIS (MEMBER).--This purports to be revision petition ur der rule 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E dewy and Discipline) Rules, 1975 read with section 7(2) of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1977 against the order dated 12th April 1977, passed by Member (Revenue) who on appeal upheld the Commissioner's order for removal of the petitioner from service.
2. In this case the revision-petition before the Full Board is not com petent. In the absence of any specific rules giving a right of revision before the Full Board, the petitioner has wrongly pressed in service rule 18 and section 7(2) of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, i937. Rule 5 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue (Conduct of Appeals and Revisions) Rules, 1959 lays down specifically that an application for revision under section 7(2) of the Act will lie only is cases where the order of the Single Member reverses or modifies an order made or a decree passed by a subordinate Court, which means a Revenue Court. Therefore the confinement of the right of revision to orders or decrees made by Revenue Courts clearly excludes the competency of a revision under rule 5, Old., against an order made by a Revenue Officer. There is no doubt that the orders in this particular case relating to removal of the petitioner from service were made by the Commissioner and on appeal by the Member Board of Revenue in their capacity as Revenue 0 cers. The Board is the highest Court of Appeal and revision in revenue cases. *he object of the Act and the Rules made thereunder is apparently for the purposes of providing a remedy to the persons considering themselves aggrieved in revenue cases and not to Revenue Officers in Establishment cases which are governed by the Punjab (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975.
3. It remains now to consider whether rule 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 gives any right of revision before the Full Board against an order passed by a Single Member. This rule embodies suo mow powers of revision to be exercised only by "Government" and not by the Full Board. Even the Government can do on its own motion and not necessarily on an application by an aggrieved person. This rule cannot, therefore, be invoked by the petitioner. Under the existing delegation of powers rules, Board of Revenue is the final Court of appeal and revision in the case of Naib Tahsildars and C the "Full Board" does not come into picture. In fact the present revision could not have been entertained at all under rule 18 of the (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 read with section 7(2) of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957. We, therefore, consider that in view of the above interpretation of the rules the instant revision is not competent before the "Full Beard" and is dismissed hereby. However, the petitioner can make a represents. Lion to the Government in the Revenue Department, if so advised.