1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Tariq Abdullah Chaudhry, ex‑Food-grain Inspector, Food Department has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Food Department, Lahore, the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore and the Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order, dated 26th and 27th November, 1980 passed by the respondent No. 2 upholding the order, dated 29th June, 1980 passed by the respondent No. 3 be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in service by allowing him all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Food Inspector in the Food Department. In June, 1980 the appellant was posted at purchase centre Kudwala, Sub‑Tehsil Yazman in the Bahawalpur District. The campaign for the procurement of wheat was underway. On 8th June, 1980 the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Food Depart ment alongwith the Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur visited Kudwala centre. The appellant was found absent at the time of visit of the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Food Department as mentioned above. Some other irregularities were also observed in the procurement/purchase of wheat at his centre. The appellant was placed under suspension, vide Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur order, dated.10th June, 1980. The appellant was also served with a show‑cause notice by the same officer, vide his order No. F. E.‑P. F./795, dated 14th June, 1980. The reply to the show‑cause notice submitted by the appellant was con sidered by the Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur. He was also heard in person on 29th June, 1980. The appellant having been found guilty of gross misconduct, corruption and negligence of duty was removed from service with immediate effect, vide order of Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur dated 29th June, 1980. An appeal was preferred with the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore which was dismissed, vide order, dated 26th/27th November, 1980. The appellant filed another appeal before the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Food Department, Lahore and the appellant was informed vide letter dated 8th March, 1982 received by him on 14th March, 1982 that the rule did not allow review petition and the same has also been filed. Hence this appeal.

4. The earned counsel of the appellant argued this case, on the point of jurisdiction, submitting that under Punjab Food Department (Delegation of Powers) Rules, 1978 as amended by Notification, dated 28th November, 1979, the Authorised Officer as defined in the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 column 5 of the schedule appended with these rules, is the District Food Controller for the appellant, mentioned at Serial Na. 11, and not the Deputy Director Food of region concerned, who is the "Authority" as defined in the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 as per column 4 of the schedule appended with the rules mentioned above. The "Authority" should have directed the "Authorised Officer" to proceed in this case as per requirement of Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. Thus the proceedings and impugned order of removal passed by the Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur are illegal and without any jurisdiction. Furthermore the charges of being corrupt, regular enquiry should have been held and the appellant should have been allowed to participate in the enquiry. He also argued that the District Food Controller who is the Authorised Officer in this case has never performed his functions as required under rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. On the other hand the learned District Attorney took up the matter of the limitation and submitted that second appeal before the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Food Department was uncalled for and not in accordance with the procedures and rules. Thus the appellant had no right of review and the time consumed by him for his appeal before the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Food Department was unnecessary, not required under the rules and this appeal is time‑barred. To this the learned counsel of the appellant did not agree, he argued that they could avail an opportunity of this review as per rule 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. Moreover the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur was void and without any jurisdiction and thus the limitation would not run against such an order.

5. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the appellant, the learned District Attorney and perused the record in this case. I agree with the learned counsel of the appellant that the Authorised Officer in this case as per Punjab Food Department (Delegation of Powers) Rules, 1978 as amended by the Noti fication, dated 28th November, 1979 is the District Food Controller and the authority is Deputy Director Food of region concerned. The Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur should have referred the matter to the Authorised Officer to proceed as per rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Ser vants (E & D) Rules, 1975. He could not assume the role of Authorised Officer and thus the proceedings carried out in this case by the Deputy Director, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur are without jurisdiction and nullity in the eyes of the law. Since I have held that the impugned order of the Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur is illegal, without jurisdiction and nullity in the eyes of the law, so I need not develop on the other arguments of the parties because it would be an exercise in futility.

6. In view of the above analysis, I set aside the impugned orders and remand the case to the competent authority to proceed against the appellant in accordance with law. The appellant shall be re‑instated in service in order to bestow him the status of civil servant to enable the departmental authorities to proceed against him. The period from the date of his dismissal to that of re‑instatement will be treated as extra ordinary leave without pay. There will be no orders as to costs. M. I. Appeal accepted.