1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Hameed Siddique for Appellant. Abdul Sayeed Khan Ghori, Government Counsel for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th June, 1988. MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The appellant was removed from service vide order of the Principal of the Girls Medical College, Nawabshah, dated 1‑6‑1985 when he was employed in the said college as Laboratory Assistant. The charge against him was that he was caught red‑handed with one Mst. Halima wife of Hakim Ali Chowkidar from the kitchen of his flat. After considering the appellant's reply to the sad charge the competent authority passed the order referred to above, removing him from service. After observing usual legal formalities, the appellant challenged the order of his removal before this Tribunal. By the order dated 13th September, 1986 the appeal filed by the appellant was accepted by this Tribunal and his case was remanded back to the Principal of the Girls Medical College, Nawabshah for deciding it afresh as per procedure laid down in rule 5 read with rule 6 of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the said Rules. In compliance with the above order of the Tribunal, charge‑sheet was served on the appellant and a detailed enquiry was held against him. Ultimately a minor penalty of withholding of two increments was imposed upon the appellant cumulative effect" vide order of the Principal of the Girls Medical College Nawabshah, dated 6‑4‑1987. The appellant has approached this Tribunal once again and has impugned the said order of the Principal. We heard the arguments of Mr. Hameed Siddique for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Sayeed Khan Ghori, Counsel. The learned counsel for the appellant did not press the appeal on merits. He, however, prayed that the words "with cumulative effect" mentioned in the impugned order be dropped. In support of his arguments he has relied upon the case of Ghulam Rasool Burdi reported as 1987 P L C (C.S.)

647. We have given our due thought to the arguments of the learned counsel and have also gone through the authority pressed into service in support of the arguments. There is no doubt that on the question of interpretation of the words "with cumulative effect", the present case is on all fours with the above‑reported case. It would, therefore, be useful to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the judgment of the reported case as under:‑ "The question arises if the intention of permanent withholding of increment could be attributed to the clause referred to above. We have considered this point carefully. The withholding has to be ordered for specific period, which, in our opinion, does not mean permanently. The pumping authority has to be specific in deciding the period of punishment. In other words some definite period is to be indicated by the said authority in its order. The learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Counsel also share this view. Accordingly the words "with cumulative effect" used in the impugned order run counter to the intention of the relevant rules reproduced above. If the said words are suffixed with the number of increments, the accused official will be deprived of the said increments permanently, which as pointed above, cannot be the intention of the rule‑making authority." It would appear from the above that by using the words "with cumulative effect" the accused official is deprived of the benefit of the increments for all time to come. This is however, not the intent: m of the rules which require the increments to be withheld for the specified period. Thus following the decision given in the aforesaid reported case, we grant the. prayer of the appellant's / counsel and order that the words "with cumulative effect" mentioned in the impugned order be substituted by words "for two years effective from the dates they became due". Subject to this modification in the penalty awarded to the appellant the appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. S.Q./l08/Sr.S Order accordingly.