1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER).‑‑‑While he was posted as Junior Clerk in Government Public High School, Ajnianwala, a case was registered against the appellant, Amin‑ud‑Din, under section 409, P.P.C. on charges of misappropriation. Subsequently, he was placed under suspension on 22‑8‑1988 and charge‑sheeted vide orders dated 10‑10‑1988 by the District Education Officer/respondent No.l. The precise allegations are reproduced below: "(i) You drew irregular payments against dummy names against the vacant posts from 2/1980 to 2/1981 amounting to Rs. 63,675.39 and misappropriated. . (ii) You received payment of Teaching and Non‑Teaching Staff of the School for 3/1981 payable in 4/1981 from the National Bank of Pakistan, Sheikhupura made of with the money and misappropriated. A sum of Rs.6,812 was also irregular drawal from the month of 3/1981."

2. On the conclusion of the departmental proceedings the appellant was awarded the penalty of removal from service and recovery of the misappropriated amount of Rs.63,675.30 by respondent No.l/District Education Officer, Sheikhupura. The departmental appeal filed by him before respondent No.2/Director, Education, Lahore was also rejected and hence the present appeal, , ,

3. The appellant has contended among others that respondent No.2 was the Authority in his case and as such respondent No.l in his capacity as Authorised Officer could not impose a major penalty on him nor was ‑he competent to suspend him and that no direction had been given by the Authority to respondent No.l to proceed against the appellant.

4. The respondents have explained that the District Education Officer was duly authorised to place the appellant under suspension and that verbal direction was given to him for taking departmental action against him. They have further claimed that the proceedings did not suffer from any infirmities and had been conducted in accordance with the rules.

5. The appellant and the respondent department both are unaware that under the West Pakistan Education Department (Delegation of Powers) Rules, 1962 the District Education Officer is designated as the Authority as well as the Authorised Officer in the case of the appellant. In this Tribunal's judgment dated 23‑5‑1993 in Appeal No. 47/92 (Muhammad Razaq v. Conservator of Forests, Range Management Division, Lahore and Divisional Forest Officer, Range Management Division, Chakwal), it was held that" ......... the same officer can act only to the extent an Authorised Officer could and no more". Thus for the detailed reasons given in the aforesaid judgment we hold that in the case before us respondent No.2/District Education Officer after acting as Authorised Officer could not function as Authority in respect of the same person. i.e. appellant with the result that from that point onwards the entire proceedings have been rendered invalid. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside, the appellant is reinstated in service and the case remanded to the Authorised Officer for' conducting the inquiry de novo in the manner as explained above. The intervening period shall be decided for purposes of payment of salary etc. by the competent authority in the light of the result of the fresh proceedings. There are no orders as the costs. H.B.T./469/Sr.P Appeal allowed.