1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑Muhammad Shafique Ahmad has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through the Secretary, Agriculture Department, Lahore, as respondent. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 7‑3‑1983, passed against the appellant be set aside and he be reinstated in service. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge‑sheeted alongwith Messrs Abdul Rashid, Muhammad Hanif, Ex‑EADA and Agr. Officer and Ghulam Farid, Ex‑Beldar, for certain irregularities and act of misconduct, by Dr. A.S.K. Ghauri, Director General Agr. (Extension) Punjab, Lahore, as Authorised Officer. An inquiry was held into the matter by DMLA, Multan, who found 'the appellant as well as others guilty of such misconduct and on the report of the Authorised Officer, Mr. Pervaiz Masood, Secretary, Agriculture, Punjab, by his order dated 7‑3‑1983, compulsorily retired the appellant. He was heard personally by the said Secretary, Agriculture. Aggrieved against this order he filed a representation to the higher authority which remained undecided and the appellant has approached this Tribunal after the expiry of 90 days. Hence this appeal.‑ 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the verdict of the Inspection Team as well as report of the Authorised Officer carefully with their assistance. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has come out with a legal objection that the competent authority in his case was not the Secretary, Agriculture, therefore, the impugned order was without jurisdiction. It has been vehemently argued that no charge of misconduct has been proved against him and whatever was done, was done by his superiors and he being junior officer has no say in the matter. In the end he has pleaded that the charge did not warrant the major penalty. 6. On the other hand learned Deputy District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Department and has submitted on behalf of the Secretary, Agriculture that the legal objection was misconceived as under rule 2(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 in case two or more civil servants were to be proceeded against jointly, the, authority for the civil servant, senior most in rank shall be the authority in respect of all the accused. 7. With regard to the merits of the case learned Deputy District Attorney has submitted that the facts were fully thrashed by the DMLA Inspection Team Multan and it has been proved that the appellant failed in his duties to inform the higher authorities of the. Department about illegal acceptance of Rs.15,000 by Muhammad Hanif, Agriculture Officer from Mr. Jehan Khan Metha and use of substandard weights in connection with the award of tractor. 8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and find that all that was done, was done with the connivance of each other and this sort of fraud could not be achieved independently by any officer/ official. In this manner the appellant is fully responsible for the act of his colleague and therefore, the competent authority Secretary, Agriculture was fully justified to impose major penalty upon him. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the competent authority in the case of the B appellant and proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./214/Sr.P Appeal dismissed