1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑ R. 19.2(a)‑provisions applicable‑‑‑Not only in case of pending enquiries but also in pending proceedings‑Action initiated under West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960‑Fnquiry completed in 1971‑‑Final order not passed prior to enforcement of 1975 Rules‑--Further action taken rind penalty order passed under 1975 Rules, held, wholly misconceived‑Penalty order set aide and case remanded for action under 1960 Rules. M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑--In, this case the appellant is aggrieved by the order of Director, Public Instruction, Punjab. Lahore, dated 21‑8‑1979 and the order crated 18‑11‑1978 (Annexures `D' and `D‑1') according, to which recovery amounting to Rs. 24,853.25 was to be made from the appellant in monthly instalments of Rs. 300 from her pay and pension This recovery was to be effected from the appellant in pursuance of the decision of the public Accounts Committee taken in the meeting dated 21-9-1978. The enquiry was initiated against the appellant under the west Pakistan Government Servants (E & D) Rules 1960 which is said to have been completed in 1971. However it appears that the proceedings could not be concluded till 25-3-1975 when the The Punjab Civil Sercants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 were published which bifurcated the disciplinary power between the Authorised Officer and the authority . The Director, Public Instruction was nominated as authorised Officer by the Governor by a specific order in this case. On 9‑7‑1979 the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice dated 25‑7‑1979 under the 1975 Rules by the D.P.I. Punjab, as to why a sum of Rs. 24,853,25 may not be recovered from the appellant. Consequently the impugned orders were passed on the basis of the aforesaid show‑cause notice.

2. The appellant has raised the objection that the show‑cause notice issued and served upon her was illegal inasmuch as the D. P. I. was not the competent authority. It was the Government who were the authority in the case of the appellant. Thus the proceedings following the show‑cause notice were void for want of legal competence. According to the appellant, the proceedings initiated under the 1960 Rule have to be concluded thereunder, Those rules did not provide for any authorised officer, and thus it was the authority alone who was competent to issue the show‑cause notice in th ese of the appellant. Reliance was placed in this behalf on the following provision contained in rule 19 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975: "192(a).‑Subject to the provisions of Chapter IV of these Rules, any departmental inquiry or proceedings pending immediately before the coming into force of these Rules, shall be completed and orders passed thereon as if the said Rules had not been repealed."

3. Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan, appearing for the Department, however contended that no enquiry was pending immediately before coming into force of the 1975 Rules, therefore, the proceedings taken against the appellant were not saved and the appellant was correctly proceeded against under the 1975 Rules.

4. It was pointed out to the Departmental Representative that the provision produced above did not only speak of pending departmental "enquiry ' but also of the pending "proceedings". Evidently it could not be denied that the proceedings were still pending against the appellant, not I withstanding the fact that the enquiry against her was completed in October, 1971. In the circumstances in the provision reproduced above it was amply clear that the pending proceedings have to be concluded under the 1900 Rules and that the 1975 Rules in such cases had no application.

5. After hearing both the parties we are satisfied that tire proceedings taken against the appellant under the 1975 Rules were wholly misconceived and we accordingly set aside the impugned orders passed in pursuance to the proceedings taken under the 1975 Rules. We accept the appeal and remand the case to the Department for proceeding afresh in accordance with law in the light of our observations above. There will be no orders as to cost. Appeal accepted.