1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑In this case the appellant, who is Canal Patwari, impugns the order dated 4th June, 1979 of the Executive Engineer, Khanewal Canal 'Division (respondent No. 2) punishing him with stoppage of annual increment for two years and the order dated 8th October, 1979 made by the Superintending Engineer, Lower Bari Doab Canal Circle (respondent No. 1) rejecting his representation.

2. The appellant was charged with not honouring a stay order issued by respondent No. 2 in respect of a warabandi made by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Chichawatni, against which there was a public complaint. He was issued a statement of allegations on 26th March, 1979 and a show. cause notice on 29th April, 1979, both by respondent No. 2, the grounds being that through disobedience of orders the appellant created a tense situation in the village concerned, with likelihood of a fight among the irrigators. After a hearing by the XEN, the impugned order awarding minor penalty of withholding two annual increments was issued.

3. The parties were heard. The appellant contests the validity of the proceedings against him as not being consistent with the E & D Rules, as no charge‑sheet was given to him along with the statement of allegations and no Enquiry Officer was appointed, and the authority himself acted as authorised nicer. On merits, the appellant pleaded that he was only required to convey the warabandi parat to the Sarbarah Lambardar, which he did, and that the appellant did not in any way act to implement the warabandi which had been stayed. Moreover, the stay order had not been conveyed to him. In any case, it so happened that the warabandi was not actually implemented and no harm was done which could justify disciplinary action against the appellant.

4. The record of the case was perused. It showed that an enquiry into the matter had been held by the Deputy Collector on 27th February, 1979, i.e. before the statement of allegations was issued on 26th March, 1969. This means that no proper enquiry was held after initiation of the proceedings, nor any order passed to dispense with the enquiry. We notice that no charge‑sheet was served on the appellant, but only a state ment of allegations. Moreover, as required by rule 5 of the E & D Rules, no authorised officer was appointed to proceed against the appellant. We find, in view of the above, that the authority concerned failed to initiate the proceedings against the appellant in accordance with the E & D Rules. The case is, therefore, remanded to the Executive Engineer. Khanewal Canal Division, LBDC, Khanewal, for appropriate action. Case remanded.