1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The relevant facts for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant was serving as a Drawing Master and posted in Government M. C. High School, Ghulam Muhammadabad. He applied for extraordinary leave without pay for a period of 730 days. The leave was to commence from 11‑1‑1985 and to expire on 10‑3‑1987. The application was recommended by the Head Master. The appellant thereafter proceeded on leave.

2. The appellant, however, on 19‑3‑1986 submitted an application that he may be allowed to resume the duty and the remaining leave be cancelled. The respondent No.l served the appellant with a show‑cause notice dated 24‑4‑1986 for unauthorised absence. The appellant submitted a reply to the same. The respondent No.l after due consideration of the matter imposed the following penalties:‑ (i) Censure; (ii) Withholding of three increments with cumulative effect.

3. The order of the respondent No.l was issued on 31‑7‑1986. The appellant felt aggrieved by this order and assailed the same through an appeal before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 rejected the appeal and informed the appellant of the order through memo. dated 9‑12‑1986.

4. The appellant still not feeling satisfied decided to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. He accordingly filed the present appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 on 31‑1‑1987. The same was admitted to regular hearing on 12‑9‑1987. The respondents have contested the same, filed written objections and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney for the respondents. The learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal has raised following points: ? (i) Firstly, that the minor penalty of censure and withholding of increments could not be legally imposed together; (ii) Secondly, that the increments could not be withheld with cumulative effect.

6. On the other hand, learned District Attorney has argued that there is no bar to the imposition of more than one penalties and in this behalf referred to rule 3 of the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. And with regard to the second submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, it was argued that the increments could be withheld with cumulative effect and there is nothing wrong with the same.

7. I have considered the arguments of the two sides. Before proceeding any further it is worthwhile to refer to the relevant portion of Rule 3 which reads as under:‑ "

3. Grounds of Penalty: ‑‑Shall be liable to be proceeded against under these Rules and one or more of the penalties hereinafter mentioned may be imposed on him." It is, therefore, clear that there is no bar to the imposition of more than one penalties whether minor or major for the same accusations. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that more than one penalties cannot be imposed is devoid of any merit. I hold that more than one penalties can be awarded under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules.

8. The other ground of attack was that increments could not have been withheld with cumulative effect. Withholding of increments is one of the minor penalties and the relevant provision reads as under: ‑ "Rule 4: Penalties: (1) The following are the minor and major penalties, namely‑ (a) Minor Penalties: ‑ (i) Censure; (ii) Withholding for a specific period, promotion or increment, otherwise than for unfitness for promotion or financial advancement in accordance with the rules or orders pertaining to the service or post; (iii) Stoppage for a specific period, at an efficiency bar in the time scale, otherwise than for unfitness to cross such bar;

9. The learned District Attorney when confronted with this provision frankly conceded that the increments, could not be withheld with cumulative effect. This concludes as far as arguments on the legal points were concerned. Now the question is what should be the quantum of punishment. The learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant presented the leave application well in time and the same was duly recommended and the appellant was never informed as to the result of the same. Therefore, how he could have presumed that the application has been rejected.

10. I have noted that the respondents did not initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant till he reported for duty on 9‑3‑1985. I have noticed in many other cases that in spite of absence for years together, the respondents do not initiate disciplinary proceedings. But the moment the concerned civil servant reports for duty, then they start thinking of disciplinary proceedings. This is not only illegal but undesirable. This practice has to be deprecated as it gives rise to many corrupt practices. It is the duty of the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings the moment civil servant working under him un-authorisedly absents. The representative of the Department tried to submit that it is with the object to bestow the' status of the civil servant on the absentee official. When I asked the learned District Attorney to cite or refer the law in support of the argument, he could not refer to any provision of law or Rules in this behalf.

11. It is clear from the above that if the appellant did not wait for the sanction of the leave, the respondents, also, did not perform their duty and decide the fate of the leave application. This way they also contributed their share. I, therefore, feel that the penalty of 'censure' is sufficient to meet the ends of justice and the order in respect of withholding of increments is set aside.

12. The result is that this appeal is partly allowed and the penalty of withholding of the increments is set aside. There is no order as' to the costs. S.Q./201/Sr.P????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal partly allowed.