1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑‑In this appeal, the appellant, Karim Bakhsh, a rural Development Worker, was charge‑sheeted by the D. C./Project Director,‑ PWP, Multan, on 12‑9‑1978, on the following charges: ‑ (1) That while posted as Rural Development Worker, Union Council No. 174 (Burhanpur), Tehsil Lodhran, you were absent from the Union Council w. e. f. 8‑6‑78. (2) That you were informed by the Project Manager, Kahror Dacca vide No. IM/78/84, dated 21‑6‑78, at your home address to resume duty but you continuously remained absent from duty. By reasons of above you appear to be (a), guilty of misconduct within the meaning of rule 3(b) of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 ; The appellant relied to the charge‑sheet on 16‑1V‑78, denying the charges and pleaded that he was not guilty. An enquiry was held ague appellant by Asghar Khan, EAC Lodhran who held the appellant guilty. On 1‑1‑1979, the appellant was served with a show-cause notice by the Assistant Director, PWP, Multan, under rule 4 of the E & D. Rules 1975. The services of the appellant were terminated by the Assistant Director, P. W. P. Multan, vide impugned order after granting him hearing on 28‑4‑

79. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Multan, on 6‑10‑1979, which was rejected on 1‑1‑

80. This appeal was filed before us on 29‑1‑

80. During the course of hearing it transpired that by virtue of the delega gation of powers rules issued by the Government on 24‑9‑78 the appellate authority against the order of the Assistant Director has been prescribed as Director, Local Government. Thus the appeal filed to the Commissioner as coram non judice and could not be deemed to be an appeal to the prescribed departmental authority, vide our order dated 24‑6‑80, we called upon the learned counsel to satisfy us on the point that departmental representation in terms of proviso (a) to section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, had been filed by the appellant. The learned counsel, however, argued that the charge‑sheet was issued by the D. C./Project Director. P. W. P., Multan, and since the appellate authority was associated with the proceed ings as such there was no use in (file any appeal to the Director, Local Government. There appears to be some confusion in the mind of the learned counsel for the appellant. The Offices of Project Director and Director, Local Government are two separate and distinct ones. The learned counsel has not been able to produce anything to show that the Office of the Director, Local Government and the Project Director was one and the same office. The plea advanced by him to avoid appeal to prescribed authority viz., Director, Local Government had little merit in it. Thus, we are clearly of the view that the appellant has failed to avail of the departmental appeal before the prescribed authority and as such the appeal before us is hit by proviso (a) to section 4 of the aforesaid Rules. We,, accordingly, reject this appeal as incompetent and direct the appellant to approach the Director, Local Government. The appellant, however, expressed the apprehension that his appeal to the Director, Local Govern ment at this stage may be treated as barred by time. We cannot express ourselves upon this issue but we hope that the plea of the appellant for condonation of delay if and when prescribed will be given due and sympathetic consideration by the authority concerned, as the delegation of powers rules were enforced during the pendency of the‑proceed ings. The appeal is disposed of with the observations above. Appeal disposed of.