1983 PLP (C (PLC)

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents. ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).‑Muhammad Akram ex‑Foodgrains Inspector, Food Department has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has im pleaded the Director, Food, Punjab, Lahore, and the Deputy Director, Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that order' dated 23‑11‑1980 passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 28‑4‑1981 passed by respondent No. 1 be set aside and the appellant be declared to be continuous in service with all the benefits of service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Foodgrain Inspector by Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, at Bahawalpur in February, 1977. The services of the appellant were terminated on account of being over‑age during 1978. The appellant preferred an appeal against termination of his services which was accepted by Governor of the Punjab and the appellant was re‑instated in service by order dated 4‑3‑1979 issued by Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan. On re‑instatement the appellant was posted as Foodgrain Inspector in the office of Rationing Controller, Multan by the Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan. Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan, vide his office order No. FE‑13/216 dated 19‑4‑1979, placed the services of the appellant at the disposal of Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur, temporarily for a period of three months w.e.f. 1‑5‑1979 ; where in this order it was also ordered that the appellant will draw his pay, etc. from the respective District Food Controller. This order included the names of 15 other Inspectors as well who were also deputed for temporary duty for three months in the Bahawalpur Region. After this temporary duty in Bahawalpur Region, the appellant came back to his parent Region. While the appellant was posted in Sahiwal, under the District Food Controller, Sahiwal (Multan Region), the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice by Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur vide his order dated 25‑10‑1980. The reply to the show‑cause notice was submitted by the appellant which was considered by Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region Bahawalpur and the appellant was found guilty of misconduct and his services were terminated by Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur vide his order dated 23‑11‑1980. The appellant made an appeal to Director Food, Punjab, which was rejected vide his order dated 28‑4‑1981. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was under the administrative control of the Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan and was temporarily deputed to Bahawalpur Region for procurement of wheat. only for three months in May, 1979. After this temporary duty he came back to his parent Region. The appellant was served with a show‑cause notice by Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur that too during October, 1980. Thus, the Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur has acted without any jurisdiction. The appellant was not his employee and he was not competent to take any action against the appellant ; as the "Authority" for the appellant was Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan ; who was only competent to proceed against the appellant. Thus, the action of Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur is unlawful and without jurisdiction. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that according to Punjab Food Department Delegation of Power Rules, 1978, notified on 20‑4‑1978, and amended vide Notification No. S. O. R. III (S&GAD)15‑7176 dated 28‑11‑1979, Deputy Director Food was not the "Authorized Officer" in case of the appellant as per Col. 5 serial 11, (III. Government Servants Borne on the Regional and District Cadres) the "Authorized Officer" as defined in the Punjab Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, is District Food Controller/Rationing Controller concerned. Thus, proceedings conducted by the Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region acting as an "Authorized Officer" as well as "Authority" are not in accordance with the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. Thus, the appellant has not been afforded opportunities to defend himself as per provisions of the E & D Rules, 1975 and he has been prejudiced in this case. Thus, the proceedings conducted by respondent No. 2 are nullity in the eyes of the law. Concluding his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders be quashed being void ab initio. The learned District Attorney also agreed with the about view points of the learned counsel for the appellant.

5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also called for the record from the respondents to adjudicate the issue properly. We have perused the order No. FE‑13/216; dated 19‑4‑1981 of Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan, which clearly shows that the appellant was posted under Deputy Director Food, Multan, Region. Multan and the services of the appellant were placed at the disposal of Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region; Bahawalpur temporarily for three months only from 1‑5‑1979 and the appellant was also to draw his pay, etc. from the respective District Food Controller of Multan Region during this period. After this temporary duty, the appel lant came back to his parent Region. Thus, the competent authority to proceed against the appellant was Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan and not the Deputy Director of Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur who served him with a show‑cause notice on 25‑10‑1980 ; when the appellant was not even working temporarily under the Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur as he was posted on 25‑10‑1980 in Sabiwal District, under Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan, when show‑cause notice was served by Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur. Thus, we hold that the competent authority to proceed against the appellant was Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan and not the Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur, who had proceeded without any jurisdiction and all the proceeding conducted by him against the appellant under the Punjab Civil Servant (E & D) Rules, 1975, are unlawful and void ab initio. ,

6. Keeping the above analysis in view, the impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the "Authority" i.e. Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan, to proceed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. The appel lant is directed to be re‑instated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant to proceed afresh against him by the competent authority. The period, from the date of the termination of the Services of the appellant to that of his reinstatement, will be treated extraordinary leave, without pay. There will be no order as to costs. A.E. Case remanded.