1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

AFTAB AHMED (MEMBER).‑‑‑ The grievance of the appellant, in short, is that the Selection Grade (B‑16) granted to him vide order dated 25‑10‑1993 has illegally and unauthorisedly been cancelled by the Director General, Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) vide Order dated 24‑7‑1994. 2 The facts of the case are that Muhammad Hanif, the appellant, a Stenographer in the F.I.A. and one of his colleague Muhammad Siddidque were granted Selection Grade (B‑16) vide order dated 25‑10‑1993. Later this order was cancelled/set aside by the successor D.‑G., F.I.A. vide order dated 24‑7‑1994 in exercise of the powers vested in him under section 21 of .the General Clauses Act. The appellant challenged this cancellation to the Secretary, Interior vide application dated 17‑8‑1994 and having received no reply thereto presented the present appeal before the Tribunal on 2‑1‑1995' with an application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit.

3. The respondents have resisted the appeal on the ground that the D.‑G.; F.I.A. being the competent authority had rightly exercised the powers as laid down in section 21 of the General Clauses Act. It was said that the cancellation order dated 24-7‑1994 was made in the interest of justice and the appeal .was liable to be dismissed.

4. Mr: F.E. Siddiqui, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that in the background that respondents' appeal for grant of selection grade had been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 10‑4‑1994 and there being no appeal before the Supreme Court thereby giving finality to the order of the Tribunal; the Director‑General, F.I.A. had no authority whatsoever to review the order dated 25‑10‑1993 as it amounted to review of the judicial orders of the Tribunal and not review of order of his predecessor. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel argued that the action for the D.‑G., F.I.A. was wholly void and without lawful 'authority. It was further pleaded that the selection grade had been granted to the appellant on the recommendations of legally constituted Departmental Promotion Committee dated 2~‑1993 and approved by the then competent Authority. If D.‑G., F. I. A. wanted to review the orders dated 25‑10‑1993, he should have referred the matter back to the D.P.C. to re‑consider the case of the appellant along with other respondent Stenographers. It was submitted that as per record produced by the F.I.A. itself, it appears that the D.P.C. which met on 19‑7‑1994 under the Chairmanship of Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed Khan, Additional D.‑G. did not at all consider nor recommend . the withdrawal of the selection grade granted to the appellant: Therefore, it was argued, the D.‑G., F.I.A. had no authority legal or moral to cancel an order which had been issued by the competent Authority on the recommendations of the D.P.C.

5. We have examined the record produced by the departmental representative and have also given serious thought to the arguments advanced by both the parties. It is true that the two of the five private respondents namely Ejaz‑ul‑Haq and Altaf Ahmed did approach the Tribunal in March, 1994 by. way of Appeals Nos. 81 and 82 (R)/94 with the prayer that the department be directed to consider them for grant of Selection Grade (B‑16) as they were senior. Their appeals were heard and decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 10‑4‑1994. It was observed that since the two appellants Ejaz‑ul‑Haq and Altaf Ahmed had already been considered for grant of selection grade and not cleared, there was no need of any fresh directions to the Department as the prayer made in the appeals had already been met with. Accordingly, the appeals were disposed of. This order in no way can be said to have stopped the respondent department from reconsidering Ejaz‑ul‑Haq and Altaf Ahmed for grant of selection grade. We, therefore, do not agree with the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that by reconsidering these two persons, the competent Authority amounted to have reviewed the orders of the Tribunal: The argument of the learned counsel is misconceived and cannot be sustained.

6. We, however, do find force in the second contention of Mr. Siddiqui that there should have been some basis for the Director‑General to have reviewed the earlier order of the competent Authority. The record shows that the appellant and his colleague Muhammad Siddique are granted selection grade on the recommendations of the D.P.C. held on 23‑10‑1993. It is recorded in the minutes that after examining the A.C.Rs. of all the Stenographers (including the present respondents), the Committee cleared Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Hanif, Stenographers (B‑15) for grant of Selection Grade (B‑16) having the best record. It would, be seen from the recommendations of the D.P.C. that the D.P.C. had taken into account all the pros and cons of the case including the inter se seniority of the Stenographers. If the Committee found the two junior best amongst the lot and the recommendations were duly approved by the then competent Authority, the orders cannot now be reviewed simply because that the persons recommended by the D.P.C. and approved by the competent Authority were junior. Such an objection could have been taken by the then D.‑G. who approved the minutes on 24‑10‑1993. The successor D.‑G., in our view, had no legal basis to review the order of his predecessor in the I circumstances of the case. 7 The result of the above discussion is that the cancellation orders .dated 24‑7‑1994 by the D.‑G., F.I.A. in exercise of the powers under section 21 of the General Clauses Act being without any basis and justification is hereby set aside. The original order dated 25‑10‑1993 is restored with' all consequential benefits.

8. Parties be informed. H.B.T./49/Sr.F Appeal accepted.