1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Haroonur Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent. S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑Malik Inayatullah has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Director (Administration), Lahore Develop ment Authority, Lahore, as respondent. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that his dismissal order passed by Deputy Director Administration LDA, dated 30th September, 1980 dismissing him from LDA's service with immediate effect be set aside and he may be reinstated in service.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was holding a post of Inspector in the Town Planning Branch of the LDA, Lahore. He was dismissed from service by an order No. 12790, dated 10th November, 1980 purporting to be passed by respondent on 30th September, 1980. This order was communicated to the appellant on 18th November, 1980. This dismissal was a result of a raid conducted on 14th November, 1979 at about 1.30 p. m. and tainted money of Rs. 2,000 was recovered from one Muhammad Rafiq. The allegation against the appellant was that this tainted money was handed to the said Muhammad Rafique by one Ulfat Afzal at the direction of the appellant, It was further alleged that the appellant had demanded Rs. 2,000' for issuance of a completion certificate of a building in favour of the father of Mr. Ulfat Afzal as illegal gratification. A case under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and M. L. R. No. 7 was registered against the appellant as well as said Muhammad Rafiq The appellant and Muhammad Rafiq, co‑accused, faced their trial before the Summary Military Court No.

5. The said Court acquit ted Muhammad Rafiq, the co‑accused, and convicted and sentenc ed the appellant to suffer R. I. for a period of 7 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,

000. The appellant through a writ petition challenged the legality and validity and prosecution and his trial by the Military Court and the same was admitted for regular hearing Mean while, the appellant was suspended by the Department and his writ peti tion was disposed of by Mr. Justice Gul Muhammad Khan vide his order, dated 13th October, 1980 with the direction that the appellant should seek remedy before the appropriate forum. Hence this appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as District Attorney assisted by representative of the Department through their counsel. The learned counsel for the respondent has taken the following three preliminary objections (i) That after coming into operation of the Provisional Constitution Order of 1981, the writ petition No. 844 of 1980 having been abated would make this appeal infructuous. (ii) That the present appeal was premature, hence liable to be dis missed on this score alone as well as being helplessly time‑barred. It was also submitted that the appeal of the appellant does not fall within the purview of section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, therefore, was liable to be dismissed.

4. Before entering into the merits of this case the point for adjudi cation would be whether this Tribunal is seized of the jurisdiction in matter of employees of the LDA, which is a corporate body Lengthy arguments have been advanced by both the parties and number of rulings were cited by the respondent's counsel in this respect. We have given our anxious thoughts to all the arguments so advanced in support of the contentions of the parties.

5. The LDA was constituted under the LDA Act, 1975. This autho rity was declared by virtue of this Act as a body corporate with per petual succession and a common seal, with powers, subject to the pro visions of the said Act. It has its own governing body consisting of various members both from the Government as well as from the Muni cipal Corporation formulating its rules, functions, and following its own procedure. The Director‑General by virtue of section 8 is an appointee of the Government on such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Government. The Authority in discharge of its functions would act and be guided by such direction as Government may give it from time to time. The officers and employees of this Authority have been clothed with the status of the public servant within the meaning of section 25 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Immunity for its action has also been panted to it under section 42, of tae s4id Act of 1975,

6. Looking into the constitution of this corporate body as well as its rules so framed by it, it can be said with certainty that all the employees of the LDA may be public servant but it cannot be held that all public servants are civil servants. If the intention of the Authority was to declare its employees as civil servants, it would have used the word of civil servant instead of public servant because all civil servants are public servants. In this matter reliance is placed on Mumtaz Liaquat v. Pakistan through Chairman Islamic Research Institute (1983 P L C (C. S.) 255) in which it was held that employees of a board would be under the rule‑making control of the board and not the Government. Similarly, Muhammad Yousuf v. Pakistan Ordnance Factory, Wah (1977 P L C (C. S. T.) it was held that the fact that a Government Servant was dealt with under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules would not be interpreted to him that he was a civil servant which expression for the purpose of preferring an appeal before the Tribunal was defined in the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 and Civil Servants Act, 1973. On this parallel it can be safely concluded that an employee of the LDA, which is corporate body, would not be a civil servant within the terms of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974.

7. In view of the above analysis we are of the considered opinion that an employee of the Board undoubtedly would be a public servant and not a civil servant as envisaged in section 2 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974.

8. The result is we dismiss the appeal as non‑maintainable without going into the merits of the case. The parties shall bear their own costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.