1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside thereby allowing the appellant to draw the arrears for the suspension period from 25th May, 1980 to 24th February, 1981.

3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant while working as Head Clerk was placed under suspension w. e. f. 25th May, 1980 and afterward was charge‑sheeted vide memo, dated 18th June, 1980 by respondent No.

3. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct enquiry into the charges so levelled against him, who after conducting enquiry came to the conclusion that "out of three charges, one and half (1J) charge is unproved and hence the official was exonerated from it. The remaining one and half (1 ) charge has been established and pertain to inefficiency and insub ordination. Hence in my opinion the official is :‑ (i) Somewhat inefficient ; (ii) Guilty of unintentional insubordination." After receiving the result of the enquiry the respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order whereby he stopped the increment for two years with cumulative effect and also did not allow payment of arrears for the suspension period from 25th May, 1980 to 4th February, 1981. He preferred appeal before respondent No. 2, who rejected the same. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned orders are against facts as well as against law. No explanation of the appellant before the issue of charge‑sheet was called for to determine the feasibility of further action against him. No Authorised Officer was appointed and as such the infliction of minor 'penalties by respondent No. 3 was illegal and ab initio void as he was authority in this case. He submitted that intrinsically the appellant stood absolved of the charges as per findings of the Enquiry Officer. The terms 'somewhat' and unintentional, insubordination used in proving appellant's guilt were vague and unintelligible. He has further submitted that the appellant had been condemned unheard.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the charge against the appellant stood proved for which minor penalties of stoppage of two increments were fully justified. With regard to the legal point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Authorised Officer could not act as Authority, learned District Attorney has produced the relevant Rules according to which Authority could act as Authorised Officer.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the Enquiry Officer has fully justified the act of insubordination and in efficiency against the appellant and Authority could according to the Delegation of Powers Rules, act as Authorised Officer and this combining in itself both the powers, was legally permitted to impose minor penalty upon the appellant. With regard to the stoppage of incre ments for two years with cumulative effect, we have settled this law earlier in a number of judgments so delivered by this Tribunal that according to Government's own instructions, increment can only be stopped without cumulative effect.

8. In the light of the above I find no force in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. However, I direct that the stoppage of increments for two years will be without cumulative effect. There will be no order as to costs. A. E. Appeal dismissed.