2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.

Briefly the facts of the case are that petitioner was employed with Punjab Small Industries Corporation (hereinafter to be called as "Corporation") and in the year 1999, a new authority with the name Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority (TEVTA) was established and certain offices and fixtures of the Corporation were transferred to TEVTA vide Notification No.TEVTA/Bud/PSIC/Abs./2014-15 dated 22nd of December, 2014. Under section 10 of the TEVTA Ordinance, the services of the employees of TEVTA were declared as deputationists. The petitioner was also performing his duties under TEVTA after transfer of his services from Corporation and was proceeded under Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2006 on the following charges:- (i) He used the different vouchers and rubbers stamps for preparing the bogus purchase bills; (ii) He drew cheques with bogus signature of the co-signatory i.e. Mr. Nisar Ali Amjad, Accountant of this Centre; (iii) He opened another stitching unit of HKTC at Mehdi Mohallah, Faisalabad without any written agreement between HKTC and the consumer." The respondent No.1/Chairman, TEVTA vide order dated 27th of March, 2010 imposed major penalties of recovery of Rs.407,500/- and dismissal from service. This order has been assailed through the instant writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is employee of the Corporation and respondent No.1/Chairman, TEVTA is not the authority against him, therefore, proceedings under Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, could not be initiated against him by TEVTA, rather only the Corporation, being the parent department of the petitioner, could initiate said disciplinary proceedings.

3. The learned counsel representing the respondents argued that although the petitioner was earlier employee of the Corporation but later on vide Notification No.TEVTA/Bud/PSIC/Abs./2014-15 dated 22nd of December, 2014, the employees of said Corporation were absorbed in TEVTA. Further submits that although under PSIC Rules and Regulations the authority vest with the relevant officer of the Corporation but in the case of the employees absorbed in TEVTA as a special case summary was moved to the Chief Minister and it was approved, whereby the authority regarding employees of the Corporation was delegated to Chairman TEVTA under section 2(7)(ii) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. Further argued that the petitioner has alternate adequate remedy, hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. On merits, he submitted that there were serious charges against the petitioner and after proper inquiry, the petitioner has been rightly imposed major penalties.

4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with their assistance.

5. There is no dispute that the petitioner was employee of the Corporation and his services were transferred to TEVTA as deputationist. Later on, his services were absorbed in TEVTA vide notification No.TEVTA/Bud/PSIC/Abs./2014-15 dated 22nd of December, 2014. The opening paragraph of the said notification is reproduced as under:- "No.TEVTA/Bud/PSIC/Abs./2014-15.

Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority (TEVTA) is pleased to approve the absorption of PSIC employees transferred to TEVTA with effect from 01.10.2014 in TEVTA. The Services of PSIC employees in TEVTA shall continue to be governed by the prevailing PSIC Rules and Regulations as amended from time to time in future." Admittedly, this notification holds the field till today, so the petitioner is to be considered as an absorbed employee of TEVTA.

6. Although the Corporation has its own rules and the authorities are mentioned under those rules to proceed against their employees but those rules and regulations are general for all the employees of the Corporation and in case of those employees who are serving in TEVTA, the Chief Minister in order to keep good governance, to provide better working atmosphere and at the same time to ensure expeditious results, approved a summary put up by the concerned quarters and by the approval of said summary the Chairman TEVTA has been authorized to initiate proceedings against such employees of the Corporation working in TEVTA. Therefore, the Chairman TEVTA is the competent authority against the petitioner under Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. For ready reference the definition of word "authority" as provided in Section 2(f)(i)(ii) of the Act, ibid, is reproduced:

"competent authority' means- (i) the Chief Minister; or (ii) in relation to any employee or class of employees, any officer or authority authorized by the Chief Minister to exercise the powers of competent authority under this Act; provided that such officer or authority shall not be inferior in rank to the appointing authority prescribed for the post held by the employee against whom action is to be taken; or ........................" A bare reading of above reproduced section clearly indicates that Chief Minister may authorize any officer or authority to exercise powers of competent authority under this Act, the only condition is that he will not be inferior in rank to the appointing authority and the Chairman TEVTA is not inferior in rank to the appointing authority of the petitioner. Hence, after approval of the Chief Minister under section 2(f)(ii) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, the Chairman TEVTA is the authority for all the employees of corporation working in TEVTA.

7. Under Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, a complete mechanism has been provided and the employees who have been awarded any penalty under the said Act, may file an appeal before the appellate authority under section 16 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 but if the order is passed by the Chief Minister, he may file review. Under this Act, remedy of departmental appeal was available to the petitioner but he skipped the same. No litigant can be allowed to avoid statutory remedies available to him and to adopt a forum of his own choice. In this context reliance is placed on the case "Punjab Small Industries Corporation v. Ahmad Akhtar Cheema" (2002 SCMR 549), "Ch. Muhammad Ismail v. Fazal Zada, Civil Judge, Lahore and 20 others" (PLD 1996 Supreme Court 246) and "Mst. Kaniz Fatima through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Salim and 27 others" (2001 SCMR 1493).

8. For what has been discussed above, the instant writ petition is dismissed on the sole ground that petitioner has not availed the remedy of appeal under section 16 of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. He may avail the same, if so advised. ZC/S-70/L Petition dismissed.