2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

14. Now, we come to the most important aspect of the case that pertains to the imposition of penalty. Through the orders dated 27/28‑2‑2001, the authority had imposed major penalty of reduction to the minimum of time scale i.e. Rs.1725‑116‑3465 against Muhammad Fayyaz, Assistant and reduction to the minimum of time scale i.e. Rs.1275‑44‑1935 against Farman Ali, Daftri. The Tribunal was of the view that under rule 4(1)(b)(i) of N.‑W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, the penalty of reduction to the mum of time scale is not prescribed. What really is prescribed under the aforesaid rules is not dilated upon by the "Tribunal because instead of remaining confined to the time scale or to the stages thereof, it took altogether a different course by converting such penalty into stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect. This aspect needs a thorough scrutiny of the law involved.

15. The relevant penalties are available in five different laws from Federal to Provincial, as follows:‑ Federal Government: (G.S (E&D) Rules 1973) rule 4 (1)(b)(i)‑‑Reduction to a lower post or time scale, or to a lower stage in time scale. Punjab: (Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules 1973) rule 4 (1)(b)(i)‑Reduction to a lower post or pay scale or to a lower stage in pay scale. Sindh: Sindh CS (E&D) Rules 1973) Rule 4(1)(b)(i)‑Reduction for a specified period to a lower post or time scale or to a lower stage in time scale. N.‑W.F.P: (N.‑W.F.P. Government Servants (E&D) Rules 1973) rule 4(1)(b)(i)-‑Reduction to a lower post grade or time scale, or to a lower stage in a time scale. Balochistan: (BCS (E&D) Rules 1983) Rule 4 (1)(e)‑--Reduction to a lower grade or post or time scale, or to a lower stage in a time scale.

16. An overview of the provisions reproduced above would indicate that the Federal rule as well as that of Punjab is almost identical with the slight difference that in Federal Law, the word time scale is used which in the Punjab, is described as pay scale. In the Province of Sindh, the words are identical with the Federal Law with the difference that any reduction in time scale or to a lower stage of time scale or to a lower post was required to be done for a specified period. It was nothing but the, incorporation of Fundamental Rule 29 which even otherwise is to be followed by the departmental authorities and which reads as under:‑‑ "F.R. 29.‑‑‑If a Government servant is, on account of misconduct or inefficiency, reduced to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in his time‑scale, the authority ordering such reduction shall state the period for which it shall be effective and whether, on restoration, it shall operate to postpone future increments and if so, to what extent."

17. In N.‑W.F.P. and Balochistan the provisions are identical. As we are presently concerned with N.‑W‑F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 with specific reference to rule 4(1)(b)(i), we would confine ourselves to such provisions alone while making a detailed discussion. Under the rule aforesaid, a departmental authority can impose the following different and independent penalties categorized as major penalties:‑‑ (i) Reduction to a lower post. (ii) Reduction to a lower grade or time scale. (iii) Reduction to lower stage in a time scale. The question arises as to whether, with reference to the penalty imposed in the instant case, the departmental authority could penalize the civil servant by reducing him to the minimum of a time scale or it can reduce him to any of the stages in the time scale or to only one step lower in the time scale. It may be recalled that the words used are " .... to "a" lower stage in a time scale". What is meant by "a" lower stage in a time scale requires further elaboration.

18. First in preference is the word time scale. We are to comprehend its real meanings. Fundamental Rule 9(31)(a) defines a time scale as follows:-- "(31)(a) Time‑scale pay means pay which, subject to any conditions prescribed in these rules, rises by periodical increments from a minimum to a maximum. It includes the class of pay hitherto known as progressive." It means that when a pay periodically increases by specified increments reaching from a specified minimum to a specified maximum is a time scale; like, for example, in case of Muhammad Fayyaz respondent, he at the given time was in pay/time scale of Rs.1725‑116‑3465. Regardless of how many increments he had received, he was reduced to the minimum of time scale so as to take a fresh start. Each of the increments adding up periodically constituted different stages in the time scale through which the maximum of the scale is attained. Having comprehended the time scale and the highest thereof, the question that remains to be answered is as to whether the words used by the Legislature as "a" lower stage are indicative of only one lower stage or any stage chosen by the departmental authority.

19. Words and Phrases Permanent Edition Volume‑1 describes the use of "a". This description is with reference to the legal decisions rendered on the subject. It laws down that "the" is the word used before nouns, with a specifying or particularizing effect, opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of "a" or "an" U.S. v. Hudson, 65 F.68,

71. From this description one can observe that "a" or "an "are used for indicating the indefinite number or for generalizing force and can be used in plural sense contrary to the word "the", which has a specifying or particularizing effect of a singular.

20. In First Trust Joint Stock Land Bank of Chicago v. Armstrong, 269 NW, 502, 506, 222 Iowa 425, 107 ALR 873, it was laid down that the word "a" has varying meanings and uses. "A" means "one" or "any", but less, "emphatically than either". It may mean one where only one is intended and it may mean anyone of a great number. It is placed before the nouns of the singular number, denoting an individual object or quality individualized.

21. In State v. Martin, 30 S.W. 421, 422, 423, 60 Ark. 343, 28 L.R.A. 153, it was defined that the adjective "a" is commonly called the indefinite article and so called because it does not define any particular person or thing. Meaning thereby that "a" is commonly indefinite without particularizing a person or thing and can be used in the plural sense as well. People v. One 1940 Buick Sedan, 162 P.2nd 318, 320, 71 C.A. 2 160, held article "a" as synonymous with "any" thereby giving a sense of plurality. Similar connotation was given in Sanders, 54 Law J.Q.B. 331, 333 and National Union Bank v. Copeland 4 N.E. 794, 795, 141 Mass. 257, 267 and Crown Coach Co. v. Public Service Commission, 179 S.W. 2d 123, 127, 238 Mo. App. 387.

22. Bourland v. First Nat. Bank Bldg. Co. 237 S.W. 681, 683, 152 Ark. 139 also considered article "a" in a plural sense holding that article "a" is a word of vague meaning and too indefinite to limit the number. The article "a" is generally not used in a statute in a singular 4ense unless such an intention is clear from the language of statute, is a determination of the word "a" given in Lindley v. Murphy, 56 NX.2d 832, 838, 387 111, 506 and Dobbs v. Board of Country Com'rs of Oklahoma Country, 257 P.2d 802, 809, 208 Okl. 514.

23. From such discussion in detail, we have arrived at the conclusion that "a" is generally used for generalizing the number in the plural sense and not particularizing the same as is done by the article the". It might have the impression of a singular but for that purpose each statute has to be seen in its own perspective and in the background of the legislative intention. With this conclusion in mind, we revert to the rule 4(1)(b)(i) in question.

24. It may be realized that the penalties imposed in the rule above are major penalties. If it is presumed that reduction to only one lower stage in the time scale was the intention of legislature, it would appear highly implausible because it amounts to snatching only one increment which can be snatched even by stoppage of increment or increments for future, which in turn is a minor penalty, it appears that with strict reference to major penalties the Legislature never intend the reduction to one lower stage in the time scale but to any lower stage in the time scale h deemed fit, to be selected by the departmental authority keeping in view the gravity of misconduct involved. The word "a" used in the instant case denotes the word "any" and not "one".

25. Had the Legislature intended the reduction to one lower stage in a time scale, it was not at all difficult for the law‑maker to have used the word "one" instead of "a" or to have used the article "the" instead of a". The very rule 4 (1)(b)(i) provides for a reduction to lower grade or time scale meaning thereby that the very time scale as such can also be educed. If the entire time scale can be reduced to the lower time scale, then reduction to any stage in a time scale is not as serious as the former. We are clear in our mind that by using the word "a" for a lower stage in a time scale the intention of the Legislature was never restricted to one lower stage, rather, it was generalized to any lower stage in such time scale availed by the civil servant. The reduction to the minimum of the time scale in the instant case, was, therefore, not at all unlawful.

26. The, reduction to more than one stages in a time scale is not a new phenomena and this Court has taken notice of it on numerous occasions without holding that such punishment could not be imposed. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of the Commandant, 502, EME Central Workshop, Rawalpindi (1997 SCMR 1471) was confronted with a similar situation where the Service Tribunal had converted penalty of removal from service into "reduction to three lower stages in the time , scale for a period of three years without cumulative effect", this Court upheld reduction of three lower stages in a time‑scale. A case of Zain Yar Khan (1998 PLC (C.S.) 1484) came before a Full Bench of this Court where major penalty of reduction to lower stage by four steps in the time scale had been imposed, no exception was taken to such penalty by this Court. Similarly, the case of Aslam Javed, Deputy Superintendent, Dry Port, Lahore (2000 PLC (C.S.) 1180) came before this Court where the civil servant after departmental proceedings was awarded penalty of reduction to five stages in the time scale. This too was never taken an exception to.

27. It may be appreciated that the Tribunal had also held the respondents guilty but they had not filed any appeal against the said judgment and hence the guilt of the respondents is proved as well as admitted. The charge against Muhammad Fayyaz is so serious that even the removal from service would have been justified. The department has taken rather lenient view of the matter.

28. Consequently, as a result of detailed discussion above, we are of the view that the departmental authority had lawfully reduced the respondents to the lowest stage in the time scale and further that their appeals before the Tribunal were hopelessly time‑barred. The present petitions are converted into appeal and accepted, the impugned common judgment dated 21‑4‑2003 is set aside and the penalty imposed by the departmental authority is restored. M.H./G‑49/S Appeal allowed.