1985 PLP (C (PLC)

S. ARDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑ Iqbal Ahmad Sabir, Chief Engineer, Faisalabad Development Authority, Faisalabad, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order, dated 27th November, 1983 whereby it was decided to proceed against the appellant, on the charge of misconduct regarding his involve ment of the complaint of Mirza Masood Baig, Contractor. He has impleaded the Governor of the Punjab, Lahore, Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Lahore and the Director, Anti‑Corruption Establishment Punjab, Lahore, as res pondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order, dated 27th November, 1983 passed by the worthy Governor Punjab, regarding his involvement on complaint of Mirza Masood Baig, Contractor, may be annulled and consequential proceedings be quashed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that while appellant was working as Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Multan, in the year 1979, permission of Governor was obtained by the Anti- Corruption Establishment to start an enquiry against him under rule 6 of the Anti‑Corruption Rules. On the completion of the said enquiry, recommendations of the Anti‑Corruption Establishment were placed before the Anti‑Corruption Committee No. 1, constituted under rule 3 of the said Rules, in the meeting held on 11th May, 1983. The Committee took the following decision :‑ (a) Administrative action against Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Sabir under rule 11. (b) Allegations Nos. I to 10 and 12 to 15 dropped. (c) Judicial action under sections 409/406, P. P. C. and 5(2) 47 of P. C. A. against Saeed Akhtar Cheema for committing forgery and giving record to the accused. It was on 20th July, 1981 that explanation was called by the Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning Department respondent No. 2, from the appellant vis‑a‑vis Charge No. 2. The only charge left against him i.e. while posted as Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Depart ment, Sahiwal, in the year 1974, he hired a house on a rent of Rs. 450 p. m. and Mirza Masood Baig, Contractor, paid the following amount of house rent by depositing into the Savings Bank A/C No. 262 maintained by the owner of the house in Habib Bank Ltd., Depalpur Road Branch:‑ February. 1976 Rs.450 December, 1976 Rs. 450 March, 1976 Rs. 900 rent for two months. June, 1976 Rs.1,350 rent for 3 months. The appellant did not reply to the same in spite of five reminders sent in the name of the appellant to submit his reply. Last reminder sent to the appellant was issued on 9th May, 1983. Respondent No. 2 was left with no alternative but to submit a summary to the worthy Governor highlighting all the circumstances of the case and factual position of several reminders which were issued in the name of the appellant, which had no effect on him and prayed that the officer being Grade‑19, Governor may accord approval for initiating disciplinary action against him under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. The Acting Governor was pleased to ask that the Department should explain what was difference between 'administrative action' proposed by the Anti‑Corruption Establish ment and 'departmental action' being proposed by the Department. The Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning Department, respondent No. 2, in thie case submitted to the Governor that 'administrative action' meant that Department might take any action as deemed fit ; either to drop the case or convert into departmental action to proceed under the E & D Rules on merits of the case. The Governor of the Punjab approved the recom. mendations made by respondent No. 2 and appointed by an order dated 27th November, 1983 Brig. Ahmad Faud. Secretary. Housing and Physical Planning to act as Authorised Officer and to initiate proceedings against the appellant. The appellant was charge‑sheeted accordingly and Mr. Mahmood Riffat, O. S. D. (Enq.) S & G A I Department was appointed as Enquiry Officer to proceed against the appellant. The appellant while submitting his reply to the said charge‑sheet informed the Enquiry Officer that he had already made a representation under section 21(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 to the Governor of the Punjab, therefore, the inquiry might not be commenced till the decision of the said representation. As no reply to his representation was received by the appellant, he has come in appeal before this Tribunal after waiting for 90 days and within next 30 days of the same. 4. The Tribunal heard the learned counsel for the appellant at the preliminary stage of this case and called for the comments of the Depart ment. The comments have been received and learned District Attorney has accepted the notice of this case with the request that as the case is complete in all respects, the same may be converted into regular hearing and be decided. In view of the fact that the entire case is complete before us, so instead of admitting it to regular hearing first and then to hear the same, we hereby convert this case into regular appeal and would decide the case on merits. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Depart ment and have perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance. 6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the impugned orders are final qua reviving the case decided under the West Pakistan Anti‑Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961 and rules framed thereunder in 1974, therefore, he seeks the annulment of the same on the following grounds :‑ (i) That the order was beyond the scope of the Punjab Anti -Corruption Establishment Rules, 1974, made and promulgated vide Notification, dated 29th March, 1974 by the Governor of the Punjab under section 6 of the West Pakistan Anti‑Corruption Ordinance, 1961. (ii) That only the Anti‑Corruption Committee No. 1 under rule 11 of the said Rules, was competent to decide whether the appellant was to be prosecuted, proceeded against departmentally or case against him was to be dropped subject to review by the Committee only on the two grounds mentioned in the said Rules. (iii) That the Anti‑Corruption Committee No. 1 did not agree to proceed departmentally against the appellant in respect of allega tion No. 11 and decided administrative action against him in this regard. This allegation was, therefore, dropped being not covered by any of the provisions of the Punjab Anti‑Corruption Establish ment Rules, 1974. (iv) That under the Punjab Anti‑Corruption Establishment Rules, the Governor Punjab had no jurisdiction to change/convert the deci sion of the Anti‑Corruption Committee No. 1. (v) That Anti‑Corruption Establishment was bound by the decision of the Anti‑Corruption Committee No. 1 taken by it on 11th May, 1981 and in no circumstance had the powers to submit charge -sheet, statement of allegations and list of witnesses to respondent No. 1. Similarly, the respondent No. 2 bad no powers to secure, approve and serve the charge‑sheet on the appellant on the basis of conversion orders of the Governor secured by him mala fide. (vi) That the orders of the Governor were based on misrepresen tation to him and suppression of facts by respondent No. 2 in the summary prepared mala fide in collaboration with the Director -General, F.D.A. and submitted to the Governor for the purpose. Learned counsel for the appellant has addressed us at length on the issues and has laid lot of stress that in view of the law land down for interpretation of rules, the interpretation of the administrative action so made by the respondent No. 2 was in violation of the said law and be struck down. For this purpose he has relied on P L D 1968 S C 37, P L D 1973 S C 451, P L D 1971 S C 252, P L D 1976 S C 483, P L D 1977 Lah. 145 and P L D 1977 Kar. 460 at 766. 7. With regard to the point of mala fides so raised against respon dent No. 2, he has relied on P L D 1965 S C 412. 8. The crux of the entire arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the term 'administrative action' was absolutely alien to the language used in the Anti‑Corruption Ordinance and Rules made thereunder and according to him administrative action could not be substituted by departmental action and only meant for some sort of administrative punishment vis‑a‑vis transfer and posting of the appellant. He has also addressed us at some length with regard to the power of the Governor under rule 5 (e) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 and has submitted that these would be only auxillary in nature and would not be destructive to the rules of the Anti‑Corruption Ordinance so promulgated by the Governor himself. 9. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the interpretation made by the learned counsel for the appellant of 'admi nistratvie action' is absolutely misconcieved, and in fact these words have been used in place of the words "to proceed departmentally" which was the only recommendation of the Anti‑Corruption Committee under the rules. While elaborating his point further, learned District Attorney has submitted that there are three actions which the Anti‑Corruption Committee No. 1 can suggest /recommend under the rules (1) Judicial proceedings ; (2) Departmental proceedings ; (3) Dropping of inquiry. He has frankly conceded that the words 'administrative action' are no where provided and the same should not have been used. He has canvassed before us that in the present case out of three actions the Anti Corruption Committee did not decide judicial proceeding nor decided to drop the entire charge and dropped 14 charges and left only one charge which is now subject of appeal, open for the Department. In this way it has been submitted that the only interpretation of the 'administrative action' which has been recommended by the Anti‑Corruption Committee will be the departmental proceedings and the Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning Punjab, respondent No. 2, has correctly interpreted the same, while submitting his reply to the query of the Governor. It has been further submitted by the learned District Attorney that besides the decision of the Anti‑Corruption Committee the Governor is armed with independent power under rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, to order proceeding against any officer when he gets any information that such action was necessary. According to the learned District Attorney although the Anti‑Corruption Ordinance and Efficiency and Discipline Rules, are independent in nature yet the same are not destructive and Governor's powers remained intact under the E & D Rules as the same are unfettered and unabridged vis‑a‑vis the civil servants of the Province so serving under him. He has also replied to the point of mala fide so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant against respondent No. 2, Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning and has submitted that the allegations so made against him are not supported by any documentary evidence on record and are nothing but conjectural. 10. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanc ed by the parties and have perused the law so cited by the learned counsel for the appellant with great respect and find the same as hardly applicable to the facts of the present case before us. The crucial issues before us in this case are :‑ (a) whether the words `administrative action' used by the Anti‑Cor ruption Committee while deciding the case of the appellant would include departmental proceedings or not ; (b) whether the Governor of the Province can independently proceed against his subordinates under rule 5 of the (E & D) Rules, 1975. While dealing with the first issue we have carefully examined the Anticorruption Establishment Ordinance and the Rules framed thereunder, conferring powers of the Anti‑Corruption Committee under the said Ordinance and find that Anti‑Corruption Committee had three alterna tives/powers vested in it while deciding the case of the appellant. Firstly, they could decide to take judicial proceedings against the appellant, secondly, they were empowered to decide that he should be proceeded departmentally and thirdly, they were vested with powers to drop all the charges. If they so desired. In the present case it is amply clear that they dropped 14 charges out of 15 against the appellant, but they kept one charge alive against the appellant which could be resolved only through departmental proceedings. We are in full agreement with the Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning Department, respondent No. 2 that the administrative action includes departmental proceedings, as there was no' other action which could be taken against the appellant under the circumstances of the case. It is a settled principle of law that if through inadvertence the proper word or epithet is not used it would not mean that the real intention of the authority taking a decision by using of that word would stand destroyed. If we accept the interpretation of the learned counsel for the appellant that `administrative action' means only transfer, we will be accepting an argument which on the face of it is not impressive. We are strengthened in our observation on the established fact that one charge of corruption was still left open by the Anti-Corruption Committee and that charge could only be established or disprove through a regular inquiry and in no other manner. 11. With regard to the powers of the Governor under rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, we have no hesitation to hold that these are unfettered and unabridged as advocated by the learned District Attorney while addressing us on this issue. We are of the considered opinion that Governor of the Province despite initiation of any proceedings or decision by the Anti‑Corruption Committee under Anti‑Corruption Establishment Ordinance will remain empowered to take action against any of the subordinates when he is so satisfied that the same would be necessary. 12. In view of the above detailed analysis of the case we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. A. E. Appeal dismissed.