1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

2. The facts of the cases and law point involved in both the appeals are of identical nature, hence both the above appeals are being disposed of by this single judgment.

3. By virtue of these appeals the appellant has prayed as follows :‑ (i) In Appeal No. 98/1568/1982 he has prayed that recovery orders of respondents Nos. 2 and 1 imposing the recovery amounting to Rs. 1,429.85 and Rs. 18,879.59, respectively be set aside being unjustified ; (ii) In Appeal No. 99/1567/1982 the appellant has prayed that impugned orders of respondents Nos. 2 and 1 imposing recovery on him for Rs. 16,545.50 be set aside, being unjustified.

4. Brief facts of the cases are :‑‑ (a) that Mr. Madad Hussain, the appellant was working as Food grain Inspector at Chistian during the period from 1968‑

69. There was shortage in the imported and indigenous wheat, under the charge of the appellant stored at Chistian Centre. The Deputy Director, respondent No. 2 by his Order No. PRS‑67‑68/BWN 587/3240, dated 14‑1‑1974 imposed the recovery of Rs. 1,429.85 on the appellant. The Deputy Director, respondent No. 2 also by his Order ‑No. PRS‑68‑69/ BWN‑626/3259, dated 21‑1‑1974 imposed recovery of Rs. 18,879.59 on the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal before respondent No. 1 against these orders, of respondent No. 2, which was rejected by respondent No.1 vide his order dated 2‑1‑1982. Hence this appeal. (b) Similarly, the appellant was working as Foodgrain Inspector at Mailsi during 1974‑

75. The appellant was found responsible for the shortage of indigenous wheat stored in the godowns under his charge. The respondent No. 2 by his order dated 26‑3‑1977 imposed a recovery of Rs. 46,998.66 by, holding the appellant responsible for the shortage. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1, which was partly accepted by respondent No. 1 vide his order dated 2‑1‑1982 who reduced the amount of recovery from Rs. 46,998.66 to Rs. 16,545.50. Hence this appeal.

5. We have heard the arguments of the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was penalized by respondent No. 2, Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan, firstly in the year 1974 for the recoveries of Rs. 1,429.85 and Rs. 18,879.59 and then in the year 1977 by the same respondent No. 2 for the amount of Rs. 46,998.66 (later reduced to Rs. 16,545.50 by, respondent No. 1). According to Food Department Delegation of Powers Rules, 1958, the competent authority to initiate action against the appellant, "Authority" and the "Authorised Officer" was the Director Food and not the Deputy Director of Food. Thus, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant not by the competent authority and the punishments awarded by respondent No. 2 i.e. Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan, were not within his jurisdiction as he was not the competent/proper authority to proceed against him and penalize the appellant. Thus, the penalty imposed by respondent No. 2 is without jurisdiction and is void ab initio and unlawful. The learned District Attorney was asked to rebutt the arguments of the appellant's counsel but he could not successfully do so.

6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the legal objection so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and have also consulted the record in these cases. We have also perused the Food Department Delegation of Power Rules, 1958, applicable in these cases and we find that the "Authority" and "Authorised Officer" in the case of the appellant was Director Food respondent No. 1 as per schedule annexed with the Rules, as per Serial No. II Non‑gazetted Executive Staff, and not the Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan, who had initiated the proceedings against the appellant and had imposed penalty of recovery of shortage from the appellant in both of the appeals. Thus, there is no denying of the fact that the appellant was proceeded against and was imposed penalties by the "Authority" who had no jurisdiction in the matter and thus the penalties imposed by respondent No. 2, Deputy Director Food. Multan Region, Multan, are void ab initio and unlawful ; being without jurisdiction.

7. Keeping the above detailed analysis in view, the impugned orders in both of the appeals are set aside. The cases are remanded to the Com petent Authority to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with the Punjabi Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 and Food Department/Delegation of Power Rules, 1978, notified on 20‑4‑1978 and amended vide Notification No. SOR‑111 (SGA&ID) 15‑7/76, dated 28‑11‑1979. There will be no orders as to costs. Case remanded.