1984 PLP (C (PLC)

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑ Malik Bilal Ahmad, ex‑Procure ment Officer, Punjab Agricultural Development and Supplies Corporation has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, in which he has impleaded Government of the Punjab through the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore. Governor/ M. L. A. Zone A, Lahore Managing Director, Punjab Agriculture Development and Supplies Corporation as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that order of removal No. P. A. D & S. C.‑11244‑E. 1./80/21337‑45, dated 9th November, 1980 passed by respondent No. 4 may be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in service with full back benefits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant applied for the post of Assistant Manager in the Corporation but he was offered a temporary post of Procurement Officer which he accepted. Subsequently after completion of training the appellant was directed vide order, dated 26th March, 1977 for test and interview on 30th March, 1977 and 31st March, 1977 in the respondent Corporation. Some time later a Screening Committee was constituted under the Punjab Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978 which recommended the removal of the appellant from service. This was communicated to the appellant vide memo. dated 9th November, 1980 and the appellant challenged the said memo dated 9th November, 1980 by filing review petition before respon dent No. 2. This matter was referred by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 who communicated to the appellant that his review petition under section 4 of the Punjab Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordi nance, 1978, was considered and rejected. The appellant submitted another appeal to the Governor of Punjab on 17th September, 1981 requesting for the review of the decision communicated but the same was also rejected. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as CO). Ismat Ullah (Retd.) learned counsel for the respondents alongwith learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant only applied for the post of Assistant Manager and has also undergone training for a period of 15 days but later on the respon dent Corporation of its own accord, offered the post of Procurement Officer to the appellant and appointed him in that capacity thereby relax ing the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Procurement Officer under Regulation 17 of the Punjab Agriculture Development and Supplies Corporation Service Regulations, 1977. It has been vehemently argued that once the appellant was initially recruited as Assistant Manager, it was not within the competency of Screening Committee to remove him from service on account of lack of qualification for the post of Procurement Officer. It has been further urged that according to section 3 of the Punjab Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978, a person in Corporation service appointed or promoted during the period from 1st January, 1972 to 3rd July, 1977 may be removed or reverted to his lower post or grade in the public interest. According to the learned counsel the appellant was removed on the ground which has not been substantiated on the record. Learned counsel has also challenged the bona fide intention of the respondent Corporation and has submitted that his removal has been only on account of malice and nothing else. He has also referred the cases of Messrs Abdul Khaliq Butt, Muhammad Akhtar Khan, Muhammad Taufeeq and Asad Javed Lodhi to show that all these officers were appointed as Procurement Officer during the period 1st January, 1972 to 5th July, 1977 but none of them had been subjected to the action under the Punjab Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978. In this manner he has challenged this act as an act of gross discrimination. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the Respondents Col. (Rtd.) Ismat Ullah, Advocate, has raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground of limitation. With regard to the merits of the case it has been submitted that the appellant was never appointed as Assistant Manager although he applied for the same but was offered the temporary post of Procurement Officer which he accepted. Learned counsel has also contested the claim of the appellant that the post of Procurement Officer and Assistant Manager was interchangeable. He has fully defended the order of the Governor of the Punjab and submitted that the Governor of the Punjab, exercised his power under the Punjab Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be considered that he has passed a void order. Referring to the case of Messrs Abdul Khaliq Butt, Muhammad Akhtar Khan, Muhammad Taufeeq and Asad Javed Lodhi, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that Messrs Muhammad Akhtar Khan, Muhammad Taufeeq and Asad Javed Lodhi were inducted in service by respondent Corporation in 1;976 i.e. before notification of P. A. D & S. C. Service Regulations, 1977 on 31st March, 1.977 which inter alia laid down the qualification of various posts. According to the learned counsel these three incumbents were not required to hold the Degree of B. Sc. (Agr.). He has also submitted that the case of these three persons also came under screening before the Screening Committee so constituted by the Governor of the Punjab and it was found that their appointments were in order. The case of Messrs Abdul Khaliq Butt and Muhammad Akhtar Khan were considered by the Screening Committee and recommended their case for regularization which was duly approved by the Governor. He has also submitted that besides the fact that the appellant was an unqualified person, his A. C. Rs. from 1977 to 1st December, 1979 would show that it was observed about him that he was insolent and unbecoming behaviour toward the Chief Executive of the Corporation was consideration against him. On these grounds he has prayed that the appeal may be dismissed as time‑barred as well as on merits. 6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and we will first of all take the point of limitation for adjudication. 7. It is on the record that the Governor of Punjab in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under section 3 of the P. A. D. & S. C. (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978 was pleased to order the removal of the appellant from service of the Corporation on 5th October, 1980. The order of the Governor was communicated to the appellant which was duly received by him. The appellant made a review petition to the Governor on 23rd November, 1980. The rejection of the review petition was communicated by the Secretary. Agriculture to the respondent‑Corpora tion, which in turn was communicated to the appellant on 10th June, 1981. According to this, appeal should have been filed within 30 days of the order but the same has been filed on 8th March, 1982 thus the appeal would be barred by 8 months and 28 days. We have also taken into consideration application of the appellant for condonation of delay and the only reason given by him in the said application is that he has gone to Karachi and his house was locked and the communication was received by his domestic servant. According to the contention of the appellant that he on his arrival, only learnt about the said communication and as be considered that the said communication was not based on well‑considered decision he filed another appeal before the Governor. We are afraid we cannot accept this contention as a valid reason for condonation of delay as no appeal lies against the order of the Governor and a second exercise was an exercise in futility, therefore, we hold that the appeal is liable to be dismissed being time‑barred. 8. With regard to the merits of the case we have seen the summary for M. L. A./Governor Punjab, in which the case of the appellant has been discussed in para. 10 item (iii) which is as under :‑ "The officer was appointed when the P. A. D. & S. C. Service Regulations had been promulgated and was not qualified for the job. His appointment was, therefore, considered to be in violation of the P. A. D. & S. C. Service Regulations. The Committee recommended his removal from service. He was given personal hearing also." In para. 15(iii) it has been mentioned that appellant may be removed from service. The Chief Secretary, Punjab approved the recommendation of the Committee on the Summary for M. L. A./Governor Punjab Zone 'A' and the Governor of Punjab also accorded his sanction for the removal of the appellant from service. This would show that the appellant's case was fully considered by the Screening Committee and was ultimately approved by the Chief Secretary. Punjab as well as by the Governor of Punjab; M. L. A. Zone 'A'. It is also on the record that the review petition of the appellant was considered by the M. L. A./Governor Punjab and be was pleased to reject the same. 9. The fact of the matter is that the appellant did apply for the post of Assistant Manager but he was offered a temporary post of Procurement Officer which he accepted. It is nowhere on the record to prove that the post of Assistant‑ Manager and Procurement Officer was inter changeable. It cannot also be denied that the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Procurement Officer, therefore, the Committee had no alternative but to recommend the removal of the appellant from service as it was in violation of the P. A. D. & S. C. (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978. 10. We have also taken into consideration the plea of indiscrimination and find that the case of Messrs Abdul Khaliq Butt and Muhammad Akhtar Khan was duly scrutinized by the Committee and it was found that Abdul Khaliq Butt was initially recruited as Manager and was only posted as Procurement Officer in the service exigency although he was overage by 2 years and 4 months but keeping in view his performance and experience the Committee recommended his case for regularization. Similarly the case of Muhammad Akthar Khan, it was found that although he did not possess the requisite qualifications for the post of Procurement Officer, but as his appointment was made before the promulgation of P. A. D. & S. C. Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978, the committee recommended his retention in his present capacity. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any discrimination made in the case of the appellant or there was any malice with the four officers of the said committee comprised over by Secretary, Agriculture (Chairman). Managing Director, P. A. D. & S. C., Representative of M. L. A., Punjab, Deputy Secretary (Regulations) S. & G. A. I. D. as Members. All these officers fully considered the case so put up before them and came to the conclusion after considering all the pros and cons of each case which was subjected to scrutiny before them. 11. In view of the above we do not find any merits in this appeal which is dismissed both as time‑barred as well as being without any merits. There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.