1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SARFRAZ HASAN (MEMBER).--Irshad Ahmad Chaudhary, Sub Engineer, Public Health Engineering Sub-Division, Burewala has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Multan arid the Chief Engineer (South). Public Health Engineering Department. Punjab as respondents No& 1 and 2 respectively.

2. By virtue of this appeal Irshad Ahmad Ch. has prayed that:-- (2) Impugned order dated 5-12-1985 passed by the Authorised Officer awarding him a minor punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect be set aside. (ii) Impugned order dated 15-2-1986 passed by the Authority (respondent No. 1) (a) treating his period of suspension from 11-3-1982 to 19-5-1982 as such allowing him subsistence allowance at 1/2 of his pay during this period, and (b) treating the entire period he remained out of service during the compulsory retirement from 20-5-1982 to 8-3-1985 as extraordinary leave without pay be set aside and he may be treated on duty with full pay and allowances throughout this period i.e. 11-3-1982 to 19-5-1982 and 20-5-1982 to 8-3-1985. (iii) Impugned order dated 27-4-1986 passed by the Chief Engineer (South) Public Health Engineering Department, Punjab (respondent No. 2) rejecting his departmental appeal against order dated 15-2-1986 of respondent No. 1 may be set aside. (iv) He may be treated on duty with full pay and allowances during the period he remained under suspension from 9-3-1985 to 22-12-1985.

3. The facts of the case are that on the basis of serious allegations of misconduct against him, the appellant was placed under suspension by the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Multan (respondent No. 1) vide his Teleprinter message No. 327/E, dated 11-3-1982 in the following words:- "From The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Multan. To The Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D. Sahiwal. Memo: No. 327/E, dated 11-3-1982. Subject: Establishment Sub-Engineer Mr. Irshad Ahmad Reference:-Your Office Endst: No. 1010, dated 10-3-1982. A propose your discussion on telephone today the 11th March, 1982 Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Sub-Engineer is placed under suspension with immediate effect on account of refusal to carry out orders of his superiors and un-gentlemanly, behaviour and gross misconduct. He is attached with Executive Engineer, P.H.E. Division, Multan till further orders." The above Teleprinter message was further modified by respondent No. 1 vide his Teleprinter Message No. 359/E, dated 18-3-1.982 in the following words:-- "In partial modification of this office Memo. No. 327/E, dated 11-3-1982, it is directed that disciplinary action is initiated against Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Sub-Engineer for disobedience of orders un-gentlemanly behaviour and gross misconduct under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975." The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Multan was appointed as Authorised Officer by respondent No.

1. The Authorised Officer charge-sheeted the appellant on grounds of misconduct in that he was alleged to have brought undue influence for the cancellation of his transfer orders issued by respondent No. 1 on 16-12-1981, had failed to comply with the transfer orders and had threatened and misbehaved with Sh. Hafeez-ud-Din, Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Sahiwal, on 10-3-1982. The Authorised Officer assumed the role of Enquiry Officer himself and submitted his enquiry report to respondent No. 1 on 19-5-1982. On the basis of this enquiry report, respondent No. 1 dismissed the appellant from service with effect from 20-5-1982. The appellant filed a departmental appeal before the Chief Engineer (South), Public Health Engineering Department Punjab, Lahore. However, vide his No. SO-II(PHE)2-79/82, dated 16-6-1983, the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Housing and Physical Planning Department appointed Mr. Shafquat Hussain Qureshi, Director-General, Housing and Physical Planning Department to act as an appellate authority in this case. The appellate authority reduced the penalty of dismissal to compulsory retirement w.e.f. the same date i.e., 20-5-1982. After compulsory retirement of the appellant, Sh. Hafeez-ud-Din, ex-Executive Engineer lodged a criminal case against the appellant vide Police Station `A' Division, Sahiwal F.I.R. No. 174, dated 1-9-1982 under section 506, P.P.C. After a protracted trial, the Court acquitted the appellant on 12-1-1985 in the following words:-- The appellant also filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal against his orders of compulsory retirement. The Tribunal accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the competent authority to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. The relevant portion of the Tribunal's judgment dated 22-1-1985 reads as follows:-- "According to the above provisions of the Rule 6, it was mandatory for the Authorised Officer to appoint an independent Enquiry Officer or Enquiry Committee under the circumstances of the case but the Authorised Officer (Executive Engineer, P.H. Engineering Division, Multan) himself acted as an Authorised Officer as well as Enquiry Officer. This action of the Authorised Officer to act as Authorised Officer and Enquiry Officer was against the rules, being unlawful, cannot be sustained. Similarly the orders of dismissal and compulsory retirement of the appellant which have been based upon the unlawful action--recommendations of the Authorised Officer also become equally unlawful.

8. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is accepted, the impugned orders are set aside and case is remanded to the competent authority to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 as mentioned above. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant. The fate of the period for which the appellant remained out of service shall also be decided by the competent authority after proceeding afresh against the appellant as mentioned above." In compliance with the Tribunal's judgment, the appellant was reinstated in service by the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Multan on 6-3-1985: On the same date, respondent No. 1 appointed Execaitive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Sahiwal as Authorised Officer. The Authorised Officer appointed Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Multan as Enquiry Officer on 10-3-1985. The appellant was also placed under suspension again by respondent No. 1 vide his office order No. 36/E, dated 11-3-1985 m the following words:-- "Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Sub-Engineer, is hereby placed under suspension till further orders under Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975." The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Authorised Officer on 11-6-1985. According to the Enquiry Officer, charge No. 1 was partially proved As regards charge No. 2 the Enquiry Officer held that the conduct of the appellant from 1-3-1982 to 10-3-1982 was "capricious and un-compliance of the orders." As regards charge No. 3 the Enquiry Officer held that the appellant was guilty of grave misconduct in assaulting and inflicting injuries on the person. of Mr. Hafeez-ud-Din his Executive Engineer Incharge. In the end the Enquiry Officer observed that the appellant was "a most undesirable person for retention in Government service" and deserved "no leniency." Vide his No. 116/ST/SWL, dated 15-8-1985 the Authorised Officer submitted his report to the Authority (respondent No. 1), the relevant portion of which reads as follows:-- "After careful study of the enquiry proceedings and cross-examinations of the accused official and witnesses, the undersigned is of the opinion that charge No. 3 is proved against the accused official and it is recommended that a minor punishment of stoppage of increments with future effect may be imposed on the accused official." Vide his No. 3137/E, dated 5-9-1985, the Authority (respondent No. 1) wrote back to the Authorised Officer pointing out fatal legal flaws to his handling of this case. The relevant portion of his letter reads as follows:-- "As charges levelled by you (the Authorised Officer) stood substantiated/proved, there was no alternate except to serve the accused with the show cause under rule 7 of P.C.S. (E & D) 1975, whereas the contents of your memo under reference do not tally or commensurate with the requirement of rules/Law". "The Authorised Officer has failed to prove that the Inquiry Officer made a factually incorrect report on some matter. It was essential that while forwarding recommendations of Authorised Officer to Authority accused has to be given opportunity of explanation in black and white. The Authorised Officer on receipt of findings of Inquiry Officer with recommendations of major penalty, and forwarding case to the Authority and not have availed benefit of explanations of accused in relation to material brought on record during enquiry will invalidate the entire proceedings. Such explanations are necessary to satisfy requirement of law. Failure of Authorised Officer to offer such opportunity to accused invalidate his recommendations and also will vitiate orders passed by Authority on basis of such recommendations, your action appears to be illegal and violative of mandatory provisions of rules." Vide his No. 2325-26/ST, dated 31-10-1985, the Authorised Officer served the appellant with show-cause notice in the following words:-- "You are hereby served with this show-cause notice to please hear in person to the undersigned on 10-11-1985 at 10 a.m. in the office of the undersigned for your defence if any, for the enquiry cited as subject. In case of failure and non-hearing in person on the said date and time, it - will be presumed that you have nothing in your defence against the allegations. This is without prejudice." Vide his endst. No. 2404/SWL, dated 7-11-1985 to the Authority, the Authorised Officer issued another show-cause notice to the appellant in super-session of his previous show-cause notice contained in his letter No.2328/26, dated 31-1.0-1985. The relevant portion of this show-cause notice reads as follows:-- "Whereas the undersigned, as Authorised Officer, in your case has been directed by the Authority to proceed against you under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 (on the following allegations):-- (1) Disobedience of orders. (2) Gross misbehaviour. (3) Un-gentlemanly conduct. as further detailed in the enclosed statement of allegations. And whereas the undersigned has decided that it is not necessary to have an inquiry conducted in proof thereof and whereas it is proposed to proceed against you under sub-rule (3) of rule, 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. , Now therefore, you are hereby called upon to show cause in writing on 16-11-1985 at 11.00 a.m. days of the receipt of this communication as to why one or more of the penalties prescribed in rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rule, 1975, should not be imposed on you. Vide his letter dated 12-11-1985 to the Authorised Officer, the appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice dated 7-11-1985, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:-- "I have received the abovementioned memo on 7-11-1985 in super-session of personal hearing letter No. 2325-26/ST, dated 31-10-1985. In this respect I most humbly submit that on 10-3-1985 an order was conveyed to me vide your No. 464-466, dated 10-3-1985 wherein you have clearly mentioned that the enquiry under rule 6(2) of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 is necessary and in pursuance of that order an inquiry was conducted and completed.

2. That now you have mentioned in the above, referred memo that no enquiry is necessary and you propose to proceed under rule 6(3) of the said rules.

3. That under the (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 this action and proceedings are not correct and illegal and fresh proceedings in the matter under rule 6(3) are against the orders issued by the Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore that "to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975." Vide his No. 2607/ST, dated 5-12-1985, the Authorised Officer submitted another report to the Authority (respondent No. 1), the relevant portion of which reads as follows:-- "The accused Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Sub-Engineer, in the light of the findings of the Enquiry Officer was served with a "show-cause notice" in writing on 16-11-1985 at 11 a.m. The accused presented himself on the said date and submitted his defence to the undersigned in writing on the said date and time. The Enquiry Officer has partially proved charges Nos. 1 and 2 in the charge-sheet against the accused official and proved charge No. 3 in the charge-sheet against him. The undersigned as "Authorised Officer" has gone through the report of the Enquiry Officer and the defence of the accused in his "show-cause notice". There has been a probe against the accused in the above mentioned charge and the judicial Magistrate has already acquitted the accused giving him the benefit of doubt against this charge. Copy of the decision of the Judicial Magistrate as submitted by the accused on 16-11-1985, is also attached. Keeping in view the circumstances in this enquiry and keeping in view the circumstantial evidence and detailed findings of the Enquiry Officer, I, the undersigned as "Authorised Officer" awarded minor punishment for stoppage of one increment with future effect to the accused official." Vide his memo. No. 26(18/ST, dated 5-12-1985 to the appellant, the Authorised Officer imposed a minor penalty on the appellant in the following words:-- "I, as Authorised Officer against you in the abovementioned case, hereby award a minor punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect in the above cited enquiry after going through the report of the Enquiry Officer and your written defence on 16-11-1985 in response to show-cause notice served upon you vide this office No. 2325-26/ST, dated 31-10-1985." On receipt of endst No. 2609/ST/SWL, dated 5-12-1985 about the abovementioned penalty from the Authorised Officer, the Authority (respondent No. l) vide his office Order No. 22, dated 11-2-1986 recorded his orders, the relevant parts of which read as follows:-- Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Sub-Engineer, was placed under suspension w.e.f, 111-3-1982 vide this office order No. 327/E, dated 11-3-1982 and remained under suspension up to 19-5-1982. He is allowed subsistence allowance at the rate of 1/2 of his pay for the period from 11-3-1982 to 19-5-1982 under rule 7.2(b), C.S.R. Vol. I, Part I read with the Government of the Punjab Finance Department memo. No. 1515-SR-VI 70, dated 22-4-1970." "Fresh proceedings were started under the directions of the Tribunal and an Authorised Officer was appointed vide this office No. 32/E, dated 6-3-1985 who subsequently appointed an Inquiry officer vide his No. 464, dated 10-3-1985. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 11-6-1985 that substantiated the allegation levelled against Mr. Irshad Ahmad. Accordingly, the Authorised Officer issued show-cause notice to the accused on 7-11-1985 and after considering the reply of the accused awarded a minor punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect under his No. 2608/ST, dated 5-12-1985. Consequently the Appointing Authority (Superintending Engineer) reinstated him with immediate effect vide office order No. 176/E, dated 23-12-1985." "Now therefore, in pursuance of the directions of the Punjab Service Tribunal, and in view of the decision of the Authorised Officer, as stated above, the entire period for which the accused Mr. Irshad Ahmad, remained out of service is treated as extraordinary leave without pay; under the Revised Leave Rules, 1981 w.e.f. 20-5-1982 to 8-3-1985. The order dated 23-12-1985 of respondent No. 1 referred to in the above quoted order dated 11-2-1986 reads as follows:-- "Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Sub-Engineer under suspension PHE Division Multan is hereby reinstated with immediate effect. Subsistence grant @ 1/2 of pay is allowed to be paid for the period of suspension from 11-3-1985 to date under rule 7.2(b) of C.S.R. Vol. 1st Part I, read with Government of West Pakistan Finance Department Lahore No. 515-SR-VI-70, dated 22-4-1970:" The appellant submitted his departmental appeal to the Chief Engineer (South) Public Health Engineering Department, Punjab, Lahore (respondent No. 2) on 20-1-1986 and 10-3-1986. However, vide his No. 26-ES/78-ES(2), dated 27-4-1986 to the appellant, respondent No. 2 rejected his appeal against the orders of the Authority (respondent No. 1) in the following words:-- "After perusing the record and hearing you (appellant) and the representative of the Punishing Authority on 22-4-1986, it is considered that there is no sufficient ground for any change in S.E.'s orders, hence your appeal is dismissed. "The decision of the S.E., PHE Circle, Multan is upheld." On receipt of rejection order from appellate authority (respondent No. 2), the appellant filed this appeal before the Tribunal.

4. The appellant did not engage any counsel and appeared in person. Accordingly we have heard the appellant in person and learned District Attorney and have also perused the record carefully with their assistance. M W.

5. The appellant submitted the following main points in his appeal and during hearing in Court:-- (a) Vide its judgment, dated 22-1-1985 the Punjab Service Tribunal accepted his appeal, and remanded the case to the competent authority to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. However, the provisions of these rules have not been complied with properly as explained below:-- (i) The Inquiry Officer completed the enquiry on 22-5-1985 in 106 days instead of 60 days as provided under the rules. (ii) The Inquiry Officer did not conduct the hearing of the case from day to day as provided under the rules. Instead, he postponed the proceedings 4 times without obtaining approval of the Authorised Officer as provided in the rules. (iii) The Inquiry Officer completed the enquiry on 22-5-1985 and submitted his enquiry report to the Authorised Officer on 11-6-1985. This report was received by the Authorised Officer on 25-6-1985. On the other hand the rule provides that the Inquiry Officer shall submit his findings to the Authorised Officer within 10 days of the conclusion of the proceedings or such longer period as may be allowed by the Authorised Officer. (iv) On receipt of enquiry report, the Authorised Officer kept the case pending for about 50 days and then submitted his report to the Authority (respondent No. 1) on 15-8-1985 for minor punishment. According to rules, the Authorised Officer is himself competent to impose minor penalty and there was no need to forward the case to the authority for this purpose. (v) On receipt of report dated 15-8-1985 from the Authorised Officer, the Authority (respondent No. 1) returned the case pointing out that action taken by the Authorised Officer was illegal and that show-cause notice should be given to the appellant before further action was taken. (vi) The Authorised Officer gave a notice for personal hearing on 31-10-1985, 56 days after the date of letter issued by the Authority on the subject. (vii) In super-session of his letter dated 31-10-1985 for personal hearing, the Authorised Officer issued another letter on 7-11-1985 giving him a show -cause notice under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of P.C.S. (E & D) Rules, 1975 stating that no enquiry was considered necessary by him. However, formal departmental proceedings had already been completed in pursuance of letter dated 10-3-1985 from the same Authorised Officer in which he had clearly stated that enquiry was considered necessary in the interest of justice. Letter dated 7-11-1985 issued by the Authorised Officer was therefore illegal. (viii) The Authorised Officer decided the case against him on 5-12-1985 awarding him a minor punishment and completed his entire proceedings in 270 days. Under the rules, where the Authorised Officer appoints an Inquiry Officer, the entire proceedings are required to be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of directions from the Authority under Rule 5 of the P.C.S. (E & D) Rules, 1975. (b) On the merits of the case also, the appellant could not be held guilty as explained below:-- (i) Transfer orders issued by the Superintending Engineer (respondent No.l) on 16-12-1981 were conveyed by Sh. Hafeez-ud-Din, Executive Engineer on 10-3-1982. On receipt of these orders he prepared lists of stores at Pakpattan and Sahiwal and on completion of these lists he handed over the charge on 14-3-1982 within 4 days of receipt of orders. (ii) He had not brought any undue influence for cancellation of his transfer orders. Moreover, no specific instance of any undue influence or pressure exerted by him has been mentioned in the charge-sheet or statement of allegations. (iii) Charge No. 2 is vague and incorrect. Sh. Hafeez-ud-Din, Executive Engineer himself did not comply with orders dated 16-12-1981 issued by the Superintending Engineer. Instead of conveying these orders to the appellant and other officials concerned immediately, he kept them pending for more than 2 months and then issued his own orders about redistribution of work on 1-3-1982. (iv). The appellant was on a few days leave up-to 9-3-1982 and when he resumed duty on 10-3-1982, his transfer orders issued by the Superintending Engineer, on 16-12-1981 were conveyed to him after a delay of nearly 3 months. (iv) He did not start any campaign of villification against his officers. Moreover, no specific instance of any such villification has been mentioned in the statement of allegations. (v) As regards charge No. 3, Sh. Hafeez-ud-Din, Executive Engineer had registered a Police case against him on these very allegations. The case was tried by a Judicial Magistrate and he was acquitted of the charge. According to S&GAD letter No. S(R)I-13/58/SOXIII, dated 30-9-1958, the decision of the Court on facts should be accepted and no departmental action should be taken. (vi) In its judgment, dated 12-1-1985, the Court considered the prosecution story extremely doubtful and suspicious. Therefore, his acquittal in judicial trial was honourable. (e) In both the departmental enquiries conducted against him, all the witnesses were subordinates of Sh. Hafeez-ud-Din, Executive Engineer. Moreover, they gave different statements in both the departmental enquiries. (d) Prosecution witness Mr. Rashid Ahmad, S.D.O. did not allow him to cross-examine him. This was a violation of rules on the subject. (e) On 23-5-1985 he had written to the Inquiry Officer to provide him a copy of the statements of witnesses but these were not given to him for his defence. On 3-5-1986, he also sent a registered letter to the Authority (respondent No. 1) for copies of statements of witnesses, report of Inquiry Officer and "findings" of the Authorised Officer. (f) He had tendered an apology to Sh. Hafeez-ud-Din about the incident on 10-3-1982 simply because he happened to be his officer. Moreover, Sh. Hafeez-ud-Din had accepted his apology as mentioned in his statement in the Court. He had tendered the apology on the advice of his colleagues for the sake of his children but Sh. Hafeez-ud-Din used this apology as proof against him. (g) The following irregularities were committed by the respondent No. 1 while passing orders of suspension and reinstatement of the appellant. (i) Respondent No. 1 placed the appellant under suspension on 11-3-1982 through a Teleprinter Message after his telephonic discussion with Sh. Hafeez-ud-Din, Executive Engineer. Suspension of the appellant in this manner on the basis of telephonic discussion was in violation of SGA&1 Department letter No. S.XII (S&GAD)-5-7/62, dated 24-8-1962 and letter No. SOVI (S&GAD)-I-31-64, dated 7-4-1964. (ii) After the appellant's suspension on 11-3-1982 respondent No. 1 came to 1Sahiwal on 13-3-1982 and decided that the appellant should proceed on 1,two months leave. An application for earned leave was taken by respondent No. 1 for sanction but no sanction was given in spite of 8 reminders by-the appellant. (iii) The appellant remained under suspension from 11-3-1982 to 19-5-1982 but no subsistence allowance was sanctioned to him by respondent No. 1 till 15-2-1986. (iv) The appellant remained under suspension from 11-3-1985 to 22-12-1985 but no subsistence allowance was sanctioned to him by respondent No. 1 till 23-12-1985. (v) Vide SGA&I Department letter No. SOXII-I-12/59, dated 26-7-1960 where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service is set aside by Court of law and the Authority decides to hold, a further enquiry against the Government servant on the allegations for 'which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was imposed, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the Authority from the date of original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension till further orders. Therefore, the appellant was to be considered under suspension w.e.f. 20-5-1982 when the original order of compulsory retirement took effect. In stead, respondent No. 1 has treated the entire period of compulsory retirement as an extraordinary leave without pay. (h) The appellant submitted a complaint of embezzlement of 40 lac. Rupees to the Martial Law Authorities and the Governor of the Punjab ordered the Chairman, Governor's Inspection Team to enquire into the case. Sh, Hafeez-ud-Din, Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer, PHE Circle, Multan (respondent No. 1) and other higher officers of the Department were involved in the case. As a result, higher officers of the Department became enemies of the appellant. All orders passed against him by the respondents were therefore, based on personal grudge.

6. The learned District Attorney adopted parawise comments on the appeal submitted by respondent No. 1 as written objections on behalf of the respondents and submitted that, the appeal was without merit and may be dismissed accordingly. The main points submitted by the learned District Attorney based on written objections were as follows:-- (a) The points raised by the appellant at paras. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of his appeal (Part 11) are not relevant (b) According to the findings of the Inquiry Officer the allegations against the appellant had been proved. However, lenient view and imposed on him a minor penalty. (c) A revision petition against judgment dated 12-1-1985 of Judicial Magistrate acquitting the appellant had since been admitted in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal on 14-5-1985. Therefore, the case was at the same stage as it was at the time of institution. (d) The appellant had submitted a written apology to Sh. Hafeez-ud-Din, Executive Engineer about the incident on 10-3-1982. This was a clear proof of admission of his guilt in respect of charge No. 3.

7. After careful examination of submissions made by both sides and perusal of the entire record produced before us, we have come to the following conclusions:-- (a) Appeal against impugned order dated 5-12-1985 passed by the Authorised Officer is legally defective for the reason that the said Authorised Officer has not been shown as a respondent by the appellant in his memorandum of appeal and he did not make him a party to the proceedings before this Tribunal at any stage. (b) Suspension of the appeal from 11-3-1982 to 19-5-1982 without giving him any subsistence allowance during the period he actually remained under suspension was against the principles of natural justice and Standing Instructions of Government/Rules on the subject. Hence impugned order dated 15-2-1986 based on this void order is also void in law. (c) The prolonged suspension of the appellant from 9-3-1985 to 22-12-1985 without giving any subsistence allowance during the period he actually remained under suspension was also against the principle of natural justice and Standing Instructions of the Government/Rules on the in subject. Hence impugned order dated 23-12-1985 passed by respondent No. 1 and his impugned order dated 15-2-1986 endorsing it was also void in law. (d) Impugned order dated 15-2-1986 passed by, respondent No. 1 treating the entire period the appellant remained out of service from 20-5-1982 to 8-3-1985 as extraordinary leave without pay was against the principles of natural justice. (Under previous orders ,of the Authority, appellant had spent this period on compulsory retirement but these orders were set aside by this Tribunal). (e) Impugned order dated 27-4-1986 passed by respondent No. 2 upholding the impugned order dated 15-2-1986 was not a speaking order and hence void in law. Moreover, any order based on a void order is also void in law. 8.Attention is invited to the following main points with regard to the impugned order dated 5-12-1985:-- (i) Although the appellant has appealed against the impugned order dated 5-12-1985 passed by the Authorised Officer awarding him "a minor punishment;" he has not shown the said Authorised Officer as a respondent in his memorandum of appeal. This is a violation of Rule 7 of the Punjab Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1975 which reads as under:-- "In every memorandum of appeal, the competent authority against whose order the appeal is preferred and any other party to the dispute shall be shown as respondent." (ii) In view of non-compliance with the mandatory provision of the above-quoted rule and the recognised legal principle of audi alteram partem, appeal against the impugned order dated 5-12-1985 passed by the Authorised Officer is not entertainable by the Tribunal.

9. Attention is invited to the following main points with regard to impugned order dated 15-2-1986 sanctioning subsistence allowance to the appellant for the period 11-3-1982 to 19-5-1982 nearly four years after the appellant had remained under suspension:-- (i) Payment of subsistence allowance to a suspended civil servant as long as he remains under suspension is an essential condition of his suspension for the following reasons:-- (a) Under the rules, a suspended civil servant is not entitled to his regular monthly salary. However, vide Para. 2(c) of S&GAD Circular letter No. SOR-(S&GAD)65/73 (Vo1.Il)-A, dated 26-3-1977 it has been laid down as under:-- "A Civil Servant does not cease to be a civil servant merely because he has been suspended. Although, his powers, functions and privileges arc in abeyance during the suspension period, he continues to be subject to the same discipline and penalties as if he had not been suspended." (b) As a civil servant does not cease to be a civil servant during suspension and continues to be subject to the same discipline, he cannot seek alternative employment to provide himself and his family with means of subsistence. (c) The superior Courts have held that subsistence allowance during the period of suspension is an essential condition of suspension. As reported vide P L D 1964 Dacca 671 it was held by the High Court of Dacca as under:-- "During the period of interim suspension, the person suspended continues to hold office and is given pay as subsistence allowance during that period, though he is debarred from actually performing the function of that office. Vide P L D 1969 Lah. 506, it was held by the Lahore High Court as follows:-- "The diminution of remuneration is not sufficient to constitute an order of suspension as a penalty for the simple reason that it is provided by the rules of the service which every public employee accepts that in the event of suspension, his remuneration shall be at such a level." Vide P L D 1964 S C 321 in case Muhammad Hayat v. Province of West Pakistan, the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as follows:-- "I am unable to regard the diminution of remuneration as sufficient to constitute an order of suspension as a penalty for the simple reason that it is provided by the Rules of services which every public employee accepts that in the event of suspension, his remuneration shall be at such a level." Again vide P L D 1967 Dacca 14 the High Court of Dacca held as under.-- 'There is a distinction between salary obtained by the Government servant and subsistence allowance which is payable to hint during the period of suspension which is compulsorily imposed upon him without the wherewithal for an alternative employment to keep himself alive. The dictionary meaning of the word "Salary" is a periodical payment for service. As against this a subsistence allowance is paid to the Government servant not as remuneration for work done but as solemn undertaking by the Government to see that its servant can at best keep himself alive during the period taken by Government to decide his case." (d) Under Rule 7.2 of Civil Service Rules Punjab Volume I Part I, al. suspended civil servant is entitled to specified allowances "during period t' of suspension." (e) Vide Government of West Pakistan, Finance Department No. 515-SR VI-70, dated 22-4-1970 to all Administrative Secretaries, Heads of attached Departments etc. it was laid down as follows:-- "I am directed to state that the Government of West Pakistan has decided that Government servants under the rule making control of the Government of West Pakistan should during the period of suspension be paid subsistence grant at the rate of 1/2 instead of 1/3rd of their pay which they were drawing immediately before their suspension and which they would have continued to draw had they not been placed under suspension. (2) These orders will take effect from 1st December, 1969. Necessary amendments in the relevant rules will be carried out in due course." (f) Vide Government of the Punjab, Finance Department No. FD-SRIV 7/7-71, dated 19-12-1979 to all Administrative Secretaries etc., it was laid down as follows:-- "Inquiries have been made about the rate of pay, allowances and other amenities admissible to civil servants during suspension. It is clarified that a Government servant as well as an officer/employee of Government controlled Corporation/Autonomous Bodies is entitled to the following payments/facilities during the period of suspension:-- (i) Subsistence grant--Equal to one half of the pay of the suspended Government servant as laid down in the Finance Department's letter No. 515-SR-VI-70, dated 22nd April, 1970. (ii) Allowances--Compensatory allowance as specified below if admissible before suspension:-- (a) House-rent allowance. (b) Local Compensatory allowance. (c) Conveyance allowance. (d) Senior Posts allowance. (iii) Residential telephone--He may be allowed to retain the residential telephone at his own expense line rent including. (iv) Residence Orderly--Where provided, will be withdrawn. (v) Transport--No official transport will be provided," (g) The above-quoted Government circulars dated 22-4-1970 and 19-12-1975 have the force of statutory rules. Vide P L D 1974 S C 291 in the case of Khan Faizullah Khan v. Government of Pakistan, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held as follows:-- "This Court has stated on several occasions that even instructions contained in Memoranda issued by the appropriate Government could be regarded as being in the nature of statutory rules provided they are expressed with precision and yet possess generality so as to be capable of application to a large number of cases." (h) Article 38(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 reads as follows:-- "The State shall provide for all persons employed in the service of Pakistan or otherwise, Social Security by Compulsory Social Insurance or other means." (k) Article 4(i) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 reads as follows:- "Right of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law etc, (i) To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan." (ii) The appellant was placed under suspension by respondent No. 1 on Teleprinter vide his Teleprinter Message No. 327/E, dated 11-3-1982 further modified vide his Teleprinter Message No. 359/E. dated 18-3-1982. Neither the first nor the second Teleprinter message contained any reference to subsistence allowance for the appellant during his period of suspension. In fact, respondent No. 1 did not pass any order about subsistence allowance for the appellant as long as he remained under suspension during the period 11-3-1982 to 19-5-1982. Keeping in view what has been stated in para, 9(i)(a) to (k) above, order of suspension dated 11-3-1982 passed by respondent No. 1 did not fulfil the statutory requirements of rules, violated the basic principles of natural justice and was therefore void in law. It also disregarded Articles 4(i) and 38(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. (iii) Keeping in view what has been stated in para. 9(i) and (ii) above, the impugned order dated 15-2-1986 is also void in law for the following reasons:-- (a) The impugned order dated 15-2-1986 allowing subsistence allowance to the appellant from 11-3-1982 to 19-5-1982 when the appellant remained under suspension is based or. order of suspension dated 1 I-3-1982 passed by the same respondent No. 1 nearly four years earlier. As explained at para 9(ii) above, the order of suspension, dated 11-3-1982 did not fulfil the statutory requirements of rules/law and violated the basic principles of natural justice and was therefore void in law. As the impugned order dated 15-2-1986 was based on the void order of suspension, dated 11-3-1982, the impugned order dated 15-2-1986 shall also be treated as void and of no legal effect. According to P L D 1958 S C 104, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that subsequent orders based on void order have as little legal foundation as the void order on which they are founded. (b) The impugned order dated 15-2-1986 allowing subsistence allowance to the appellant for the period 11-3-1982 to 19-5-1982 was passed years after the last date of suspension period i.e., 19-5-1982. Wt. This inordinate delay in sanctioning subsistence allowance years after the last date of suspension has negated and subverted the very concept of subsistence allowance. This allowance is required to be paid to a suspended civil servant to provide him and his family with means of subsistence during the period of his suspension and as long as he remains suspended when he is no longer entitled to regular monthly salary and when his guilt or innocence has yet to be established. In this particular case, the appellant could neither draw his monthly salary during the period 11-3-1982 to 19-5-1982 when he remained suspended nor he was allowed any subsistence allowance to provide him and his family with means of subsistence during this period. Therefore, sanctioning of subsistence allowance to the appellant nearly four years after the suspension period cuts across the basic principles of natural justice. According to the well-recognised legal principles, any order in violation of the rules of natural justice is void in law. According to P L D 1975 S C 131, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has defined a void order as follows:-- "A void order on the other hand is one which would render the proceedings quorum non-judice such as the one passed mala fide, without jurisdiction or in violation of mandatory provisions of law or against the principles of natural justice." (iv) According to P L D 1974 Lah. 434, the Lahore High Court has ruled that "void order will have no value whatsoever and is simply to be ignored." Again, vide P L D 1970 Lah. 6.. the Lahore High Court has ruled that "an act or an order which is a nullity has simply to be ignored." Therefore, void order dated 15-2-1986 allowing subsistence allowance to the appellant nearly 4 years after suspension period was over and the equally void order of suspension dated 11-3-1982 have simply to be ignored as though these orders were never passed. As a result, the appellant's period of service from 11-3-1982 to 19-5-1982 shall have to be treated as duty with full pay and allowances admissible to him under the rules ignoring the void order dated 11-3-1982 and 15-2-1986 as though these had never been passed. (v) Treating the appellant's period of service from 11-3-1982 to 19-5-1982 as suspension period was also not justified in the light of circular letter No. SO(XI)(S&GAD)5-7/62, dated 24-8-1962 which had the force of statutory rules. According to this circular letter "suspension should only be resorted to where it is essential" Further, suspension for corruption or misconduct should only be ordered in case major penalty was likely to be imposed. In this case, however, the proceedings against the appellant ended in a "minor punishment".

10. The impugned order dated 15-2-1986 passed by respondent No. 1 also refers to his order dated 23-12-1985 allowing the appellant subsistence allowance for the period 11-3-1985 to 22-12-1985 after the period of suspension was over. In this connection attention is invited to the following:-- (i) The original order of suspension dated 11-3-1985 by respondent No. 1 on which his order dated 23-12-1985 was based reads as follows:-- "Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Sub-Engineer is hereby placed under suspension till further orders under Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975." The above order of suspension did not allow any subsistence allowance to the appellant to which he was entitled during suspension. As already explained vide para. 9(i) and (ii) above payment of subsistence allowance is a mandatory provision of rules,/law as long as the civil servant remains under suspension. (ii) The following references clearly show that no subsistence allowance was paid to the appellant throughout his prolonged period of suspension from 11-3-1985 to 22-12-1985 in spite of numerous applications submitted by the appellant to his XEN. and respondent No. 1. (a) Application dated 1-6-1985 submitted by the appellant to respondent No. 1 requesting for subsistence allowance as he was suffering from financial hardship. (b) Application dated 15-6-1985 submitted by the appellant to XEN. Public Health Engineering Division Multan containing request for subsistence allowance to relieve him from financial hardship. Application forwarded by XEN to respondent No. 1 vide his endst. No. 1977 dated 23-6-1985. (c) Application dated 26-6-1985 submitted by the appellant to respondent No. 1 containing request for subsistence allowance to relieve him from financial hardship. (d) Application dated Nil submitted by the appellant to XEN. Public Health Engineering Division, Multan again requesting for subsistence allowance to relieve him from financial hardship. Application forwarded by XEN to respondent No. 1 vide his endst. No. 2254 dated 9-7-1985. (e) Application dated 13-7-1985 submitted by the appellant to respondent No. 1 again requesting for subsistence allowance to relieve him from financial hardship. (f) Application dated 16-7-1985 submitted by the appellant to XEN. Public Health Engineering Division, Multan requesting for subsistance allowance as he was suffering extreme financial hardship. Application forwarded by XEN. to respondent No. 1 vide his endst. No. 2459, dated 21-7-1985. (g) Application dated 20-7-1985 submitted by the appellant to respondent No. 1 again pointing out that he had not been paid any subsistence allowance so far. (h) Application dated 4-8-1985 submitted by the appellant to respondent No. 1 pointing out that he was not being paid any subsistence allowance (luring suspension and he was suffering from financial hardship. (i) Application dated 1-8-1985 submitted by the appellant to XEN. Public Health Engineering Division, Multan pointing out that no subsistence allowance was being paid to him during suspension in spite of numerous reminders. Application forwarded by XEN. to respondent No. 1 vide his endst. No. 2726, dated 10-8-1985. (j) Application dated 16-8-1985 submitted by the appellant to XEN. Public Health Engineering Division, Multan requesting for payment of subsistence allowance during suspension. Application forwarded by XEN. to respondent No. 1 vide his endst. No. 2975, dated 31-8-1985. (k) Application dated 2-9-1985 submitted by the appellant to XEN. Public Health Engineering Division, Multan stating that he was suffering from extreme financial hardship due to non-payment of subsistence allowance in spite of numerous applications. Application forwarded by XEN. to respondent No. I vide his endst. No. 3158, dated 14-9-1985. (1) Application dated 9-9-1985 submitted by the appellant to respondent No. 1 pointing out that he had been subjected to extreme financial hardship due to non-payment of subsistence allowance during suspension. (m) Application dated 16-9-1985 submitted by the appellant to XEN. Public Health Engineering Division, Multan pointing out non-payment of subsistence allowance to him in spite of numerous applications. This application was also forwarded by XEN. to respondent No. 1 vide his No. 3598 dated 14-10-1985. (n) Application dated 28-9-1985 submitted by the appellant to respondent No. 1 pointing out his extreme financial hardship due to non-payment of subsistence allowance. (o) Application dated 28-11-1985 submitted by the appellant to his XEN. with copy to respondent No. 1 requesting for subsistence allowance which had not been paid to him during his suspension for the last many months in spite of numerous reminders. (iii) Non-payment of subsistence allowance to the appellant during the period 11-3-198.5 to 24-12-1985 in spite of numerous written applications by the appellant was a clear violation of Standing Orders of Government /Rules on the subject. It also violated the rules of natural justice and disregarded Articles 4(i) and 38(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Therefore, order dated 23-12-1985 passed by respondent No. 1 allowing subsistence allowance to the appellant after the period of suspension and order of suspension dated 11-3-1985 passed by the same respondent without allowing any subsistence allowance to the appellant arc void in law. (iv) As orders dated 11-3-1985 and 23-12-1985 are void in law, the impugned order dated 15-2-1986 endorsing these void orders is also void in law so far as the period of suspension from 11-3-1985 to 22-12-1985 is concerned. In this connection, attention is invited to P L D 1958 S C 104 according to which the Supreme. Court of Pakistan had ruled that subsequent orders passed on void order have "as little legal foundation as the void order on which they are founded." (v) As the void order is a nullity and "has simply to be ignored" the impugned order dated 15-2-1986 endorsing the void orders dated 11-3-1985 and 23-12-1985 shall have to be ignored as though these orders were never passed. As a result, the period of service of the appellant from 11-3-1985 to 22-12-1985 shall have to be treated as duty with full pay and allowances admissible to him under the rules ignoring the above mentioned void orders passed by the respondent No. 1. (vi) The prolonged suspension of the appellant from 11-5-1985 to 22-12-1985 was also against the mandatory provisions of Government Circular No. SOR(I) (S&GAD)-1-74/72, dated 18-10-1972 which has the force of statutory rules. The relevant portions of this circular reads as follows:-- "It has therefore been decided that the suspension period of a Government servant should in no case, be allowed to exceed six months and that the Appointing Authorities who are also the suspending authorities should immediately reinstate officials who have been under suspension for six months or more unless the charges against them are very grave such as embezzlement of large amounts or other offences including moral turpitude and the evidence available is likely to result in imposition of a major penalty." "All cases which, in the opinion of the Appointing Authority, involve serious charges and in which reinstatement of the suspended Government servant is considered inadvisable should immediately be brought to the notice of the Administrative Secretary concerned. The Administrative Secretary should formally himself in all cases including those in which he himself or the Governor is the Appointing Authority about the desirability of the continued suspension of the accused. If he feels that there is no justification for prolonging the period of suspension, he may direct and where necessary obtain orders of the Governor for reinstatement of the accused. In this particular case the appellant remained under suspension for more than 9 months on the basis of a void order but the case was not put up to the Administrative Secretary to decide about his reinstatement.

11. The impugned order dated 15-2-1986 treating the entire period the appellant remained out of service from 20-5-1982 to 8-3-1985 as extraordinary leave without pay is also against the rules of natural justice and therefore void law for the following reasons:-- (i) Vide its judgment, dated 22-1-1985, the Punjab Service Tribunal set aside the previous order of dismissal and compulsory retirement of the appellant on the ground that the said order was based on unlawful action/recommendations and was therefore equally unlawful. In this judgment the Tribunal had directed that the appellant should be reinstated in service, proceeded against afresh in accordance with the provisions of P.C.S. (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 and the period during which the appellant remained out of service be decided by the competent authority after proceeding afresh against the appellant. (ii) As the order of dismissal and compulsory retirement had been declared unlawful by this Tribunal, it was void and had "no value whatsoever." (iii) Keeping in view P L D 1974 Lah. 434 and P L D 1970 Lah. 6, the void order of compulsory retirement dated 20-5-1982 had "simply to be ignored" as though this order had never been passed. (iv) Vide 1977 P L C (C.S.T) 20, it was held as under:-- "Salary for intervening period: Removal from service was set aside by Civil Court as "illegal and void" with observation that "appellant continued to be in service. "Intervening period was subsequently treated by Department "as having been spent on leave of nature a due". Contention that rule 152(b), Sind Civil Service Rules, Vol. I was applicable only in the case of "honourable acquittal" and benefit thereof was not permissible to appellant in whose case removal order was set aside because of defective inquiry was rejected and appellant having been held by Civil Court to continue in service was held entitled to salary for intervening period." Vide P L D 1979 Kar. 56, it was further held as under:-- "Recovery of arrears of salary by a Government servant is an enforceable legal right. Where a Civil Court has held discharge of a civil servant from service to be void and inoperative, such civil servant cannot be denied arrears due to him for the period he was wrongly kept out of service." (v) Keeping in view the rulings of the superior Courts reproduced above, the appellant became entitled to full pay and allowances during the period 20-5-1982 to 8-3-1985, when he was wrongfully kept out of service by an unlawful and void order. (vi) As a result of fresh proceedings ordered by the Tribunal, the appellant was awarded a "minor punishment". However, vide the impugned order dated 15-2-1986, this "minor punishment" was made a basis for treating the entire period from 20-5-1982 to 8-3-1985, as extraordinary leave without pay. (vii) Neither the Revised Leave Rules, 1981, quoted in the impugned order dated 15-2-1986 nor any other rule or law provided any justification for treating the entire period from 20-5-1982 to 8-3-1985, as extraordinary leave without pay on the basis of "minor punishment". (viii) Neither extraordinary leave without pay or any other leave under Revised Leave Rules, 1981 can be sanctioned unilaterally without any application of consent of the officer concerned. Rule 6(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, is the only exception where an officer can be sent on leave as a result of departmental proceedings. However, this rule also was not applicable to the appellant any longer as the proceedings against him had already been concluded and he had already been awarded a "minor punishment" as a result of these proceedings. (ix) Although extraordinary leave without pay is not a penalty under P.C.S. (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, it had all the attributes of a punishment. By virtue of this order, the appellant was also denied pay and allowances to which he became entitled during the period he was wrongfully kept out of service on the basis of an unlawful and void order. Thus, in effect, the appellant was punished twice on the basis of one show-cause notice; he was awarded a minor punishment" and at the same time deprived of full pay and allowances to which he had become legally entitled during the period 20-5-1982 to 8-3-1985 when he was wrongfully kept out of service on compulsory retirement on the basis of an unlawful and void order. In this connection attention is invited to Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 which reads as under:-- "No person-- (a) shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once." (x) No doubt, the Tribunal's judgment dated 22-1-1985 allowed the competent authority to decide the period 20-5-1982 to 8-3-1985 during which the appellant was wrongfully kept out of service on the basis of an unlawful order. However, discretion cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner. It must be exercised "on judicial grounds and for substantial reasons" (4 L D 160). Vide A I R 1970 Mad. 63 at p.

75. The High Court of Madras held as under:-- If people, who have to exercise a public duty by exercising their discretion, take into account matters which the Courts consider not to be proper for the guidance of their discretion, then in the eye of law. They have not exercised that discretion." (xi) Keeping in view what has been explained above in para. 11(i) to (ix) it is obvious that the impugned order dated 15-2-1986 treating the entire period from 20-5-1982 to 8-3-1985 as extraordinary leave without pay was not based on any rule or law. The said impugned order was against the rules of natural justice and was therefore void m law.

12. The impugned order dated 27-4-1986 is also void for the following main reasons:-- (i) It is a short order upholding the impugned order dated 15-2-1986 without giving any detailed reasons. It is therefore not a speaking order and hence void in law. (ii) As the impugned order dated 15-2-1986 is void in law, the impugned order dated 27-4-1986 based on it is equally void in law. Vide P L D 1958 S C 104 the Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that subsequent orders passed on the basis of a void order have "as little legal foundation as the void order on which they are founded."

13. Keeping in view the detailed analysis of the case given above, the appeal is accepted to the extent that impugned orders dated 15-2-1986 and 27-4-1986 are set aside being void in law. As a result, the appellant shall be treated on duty during the period I1-3-1982 to 19-5-1982, 11-3-1985 to 22-12-1985 and 20-5=1982 to 8-3-1985 and shall be entitled to such pay and allowances as are admissible to him under the rules. As regards order dated 5-12-1985 passed by the Authorised Officer awarding a "minor punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect", the appellant has not complied with the mandatory provisions of rule 7 of the Punjab Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1975 and has not impleaded the said Authorised Officer as a respondent at any stage of the proceedings before this Tribunal. No separate order has therefore been passed on this part of the appeal. There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties. AA./274/Sr. P Order accordingly.