NAZIR AHMAD vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SAHIWAL
This service appeal was filed by a Forest Guard challenging the imposition of a major penalty, specifically the recovery of Rs. 23,088 and the stoppage of three increments, ordered by the Divisional Forest Officer, Sahiwal, and subsequently upheld by the Conservator of Forest, Multan Circle. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by the fact that the authority and the authorized officer were the same person, thereby exceeding the jurisdiction to impose a major penalty. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that the impugned orders were unsustainable in law. The Tribunal observed that under the relevant Efficiency and Discipline (E&D) Rules, the roles of the authority and the authorized officer must remain distinct. When these roles are conflated in one person, the final order is deemed to be that of an authorized officer, who lacks the legal competence to impose a major penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Competent Authority to initiate de novo proceedings in strict accordance with the applicable E&D Rules.
- Can the roles of the authority and the authorized officer be combined in a single person during disciplinary proceedings?
- Does an authorized officer possess the legal jurisdiction to impose a major penalty under the E&D Rules?
- What is the legal consequence when an authorized officer imposes a major penalty in excess of their powers?
- Section 4, Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974
ORDER
The appellant Nazir Ahmad, Forest Guard, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the P.S.T., Act against the order dated 30-9-1991 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Sahiwal, whereby a major penalty of recovery of Rs,23,088 and stoppage of three increments was imposed upon the appellant. The appeal against the impugned order was dismissed by Conservator of Forest, Multan Circle, Multan through order dated 3-1-1994, hence this appeal.
2. The main contention of the appellant is that the impugned order suffers from grave irregularities as it has been passed by the authority without the appointment of an authorized officer. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the cases reported as 1994 PLC (C.S.) 477, 1995 PLC (C.S.) 32, 1995 PLC (C.S.) 116 and 1997-PLC (C.S.) 657. All these authorities are to the point that the authority and authorized officers cannot join in one person. In such an eventuality, the final order shall be deemed to be that of the authorized officer. An authorized officer under the E&D Rules can only impose a minor penalty. Since in the case, in hand, a major penalty has been imposed, it will be deemed that the impugned order was passed in excess of the powers.
3. In view of the above, both the impugned orders are not sustainable in law, which are accordingly set aside and the case is remanded to the Competent Authority to initiate de novo proceedings in accordance with the provision of the E&D Rules.
Cited by 3 cases
- ABDUL MALIK vs PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN and others 2005 PLC (C.S.) 1559
- Syed MUZAMMIL HUSSAIN and 2 others vs CENTRAL DIRECTORATE OF NATIONAL SAVINGS (CDNS) and others 2005 PLC (C.S.) 1384
- Syed Muzammil Hussain And 2 Other vs Central Directorate Of Nationals (K.L.R. 2005 Labour & Service Cases 169)