1979 PLP 33 (PLC)

(ii) if he has been declared insolvent ; or (iii) if he has been declared to be disqualified for employment in, or has been dismissed from, the service under the Central Government or the Provincial Government or has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude ; or (iv) if he has knowingly acquired or continues to hold, without the permission in writing of Government, directly or indirectly or through a partner, any share or interest in any contract of employment with or by or on behalf of the Corporation or in any land or property which to his knowledge is likely to benefit or has benefited as a result of the operations of the Corporation. (8) Government shall consult the Corporation in all matters relating to the co‑ordination of road and rail transport and in the fixation of fares and freights under Chapter IV. (9) Government may make rules not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, prescribing the powers and functions of the Corporation.

7. From the above it is clear that Road Transport Corporation is a body corporate and shall by that name sue and be sued. According to subsection (9), the Government may make rules prescribing the powers and functions of the Corporation. Subsequently W. P. Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 was amended and subsection (9) of section 70 was renum bered as subsection (10) of section

70. In exercise of these powers, the Government framed rules called Punjab Road Transport Board Rules, 1972. Rule 7 reads as under :‑

Appointment of Officers and servants of Board.‑(1) The Board shall appoint principal officers specified in rule 9 with the prior approval of Government. (2) The Board may appoint such other officers and servants as it may consider necessary for the efficient performance of its functions. (3) The conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of officers and servants of the Board shall ‑ (a) as respects the officers mentioned in sub‑rule (1), be such as may be prescribed by the Board with the prior approval of the Govern ment ; and (b) as respects other officers and servants, be such as may be prescribed by the Board. (4) The officers and the servants of the Board shall hold office at the discretion of the Board. (5) Subject to the provisions of sub‑rule (1), power to appoint, promote, suspend, fine, reduce in rank, remove or dismiss from service and power to grant leave shall in the case of officers mentioned in sub rule (1) vest in the Board, and in the case of other officers and servants, such officers of the Board, as are empowered by the Board in this behalf. (6) In respect of any order passed under rule, an appeal shall lie to ‑ (a) the Managing Director of the Board when the order is made by any officer subordinate to him ; (b) the Chairman, when the order is made by the Managing Director;, and (c) the Board, when the order is made by the Chairman; Provided that in the case of officers mentioned in sub‑rule (1), an appeal against the order of the Board shall lie to the Government. Rule 14 reads as under :‑

Delegation of Powers.‑The Board may, subject to such conditions and limitations as it may specify, delegate such of its powers and duties as it may deem necessary for efficiently carrying on its day to day administration, to‑ (i) Managing Director and Members of the Board ; (ii) Sub‑Committees of the Board ; and (iii) Officers and Servants of the Board.

8. Under sub‑rule (5) of rule 7, power to appoint and dismiss in the case of officers mentioned in, sub‑ruled) vests m the Board and in the case of other officers and servants, such officers of the Board as are empowered by the Board in this behalf.' According to rule 14, the Board could only delegate its powers to the three categories mentioned therein.

9. The appellant was appointed by the Punjab Road Transport Board through its delegatee, viz. District Manager, Punjab Road Transport Board and, therefore, he (appellant) was the servant of the Board when the alleged misconduct took place. He was neither dismissed by the Board nor by its, delegatee. As mentioned above this power could not have been delegated to any person other than the officers of the Board. Since the order of dismissal of the appellant was passed by the District Manager, Punjab, Urban Transport Corporation, it was without jurisdiction and as such was void ab initio.

10. Further I find that the appellant had not committed any dishonesty, fraud or theft in connection with the business or property of the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation on 19‑9‑1976, because at that time it had no come into existence. Under these circumstances, how could the District Manager of Punjab Urban Transport Corporation pass the order of dismissal of the appellant. This is a further reason to establish that the order of dismissal of the appellant was without lawful authority and as such was invalid.

11. I, accordingly, accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the Labour Court and direct that the appellant be re‑instated with back benefits. Appeal accepted.