1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑S. 3‑‑Agricultural Development Authority North‑West Frontier Province Administrative Procedure Rules‑‑Worth‑West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974), S. 4‑‑North‑West Frontier Province Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R. 5‑‑Appeal‑‑Termination of services‑‑Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal‑‑Competency to hear appeal‑ Appellant was governed by Rules framed under S. 3 of Ordinance I of 1980 which deal with Efficiency and Discipline Rules, providing therein different types of omission/commission, minor and major penalties, procedure to conduct enquiry and hearing of appeals‑‑In presence of special enactment which did not contain provision of application of Act I of 1974 or North‑West Frontier 1'rcnince Efficiency and Discipline Rules; 1973, those provisions could not be made applicable‑‑Service Tribunal had thus got no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon I lie matter‑‑Appellant was directed to approach the proper forum for redress of his wrong Adam Khan for Appellant: Public Prosecutor for Respondents. MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑Appellant was. serving as a ‑driver under the Agricultural Development Authority at its Mardan office when his services were terminated from 1‑8‑1987. According to him he was appointed as driver on 4‑9‑1985 and was made permanent on 1‑3‑1986. He was directed to work with Procurement Officer, Agricultural Development Authority, Mardan vide order dated 23‑5‑1987 then on 13‑7‑1987 his explanation was asked by respondent No. 1 to which he replied. However, on 26‑7‑1987 his services were terminated with effect from 1‑8‑1987. He went in appeal but till the filing of the present appeal no reply was given to him. According to him the impugned order is arbitrary, void illegal and ineffective upon his rights. He was not given the charge‑sheet and the procedure embodied in the N.‑W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 was not complied with by the respondents. Respondents submitted the written statement, denying all the allegations and further alleging that the Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to try the present appeal and the appellant has got no cause of action. Arguments heard and the record perused. The appellant is governed by, the rules known as "Agricultural Development Authority N.‑W.F.P. Administrative Procedure Rules". These rules were framed under section 3 of the N: W.F.P. Agricultural Development Authority Ordinance 1980 (N.‑W.F.P. Ordinance No. 1 dated 29th March; 1980), Chapter 8 deals with the Efficiency & Discipline Rules. This chapter provides the different types of omission/commission, the minor and the major penalties, the procedure to conduct the enquiry and the hearing of the appeals. Nowhere it was inserted in the said rules that the employees of the Authority will be governed by the N.‑W.F.P. (E & D) Rules, 1973 or the jurisdiction of the N.‑W.F.P. Service Tribunal is extended to the employees of the Authority. In presence of a special enactment, which does not contain the provision of the application of the Act, 1974, it could not be made applicable to it. The result is that the Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and the appellant is directed to approach the proper forum, if he so likes. Appeal be returned to him. AA. 95/Sr. N. ??????????? Order accordingly.