1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑In this case the appellant, who is Executive Engineer in the Mechinery Maintenance Division of the Highway Department, seeks to quash an order dated 2‑1‑1980 made by the Secretary C & W (the respondent) whereby two increments of the appellant were stopped. A review petition was rejected on 6‑4‑1980: Briefly stated, the background of the case is that the appellant was suspended from service vide order dated 29‑10‑1978 for alleged irregularity committed by him on 3‑9‑1978 in accepting tender for the supply of construction material worth Rs. 3,75,000, for carpeting The Mall, Wah Cantonment. After a preliminary investigation by Mr. Munir Ahmad, Executive Engineer, Multan, who found that the appellant had committed no irregularity in respect of any of the six allegations given in the terms of 'reference, the appellant was re‑instated in service with full pay, etc. However, the Governor's orders are said to have been obtained for imposing the penalty of withholding two increments on the ground that the conduct of the appellant was lacking in the following two aspects: "(i) Draft N. I. T. and Bid Schedule (as prescribed) in section 1101 of the Highway Department Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction) had not been prepared. (ii) The cuttings in the tender documents were not attested by you and the contractor before issue to the respective contractors." The appellant was also served with a show‑cause notice dated 11‑10‑1979 under the E & D Rules in respect of these two deficiencies above. Later the impugned order was served on the appellant stating that as a result of a departmental enquiry his two increments were being stopped.

3. The parties were heard and the record of the case summoned and examined. The appellant contended that no departmental enquiry had been held before the issuance of the show‑cause notice, and if any preliminary probe was held he had not been associated with it. The only enquiry he knew of was the preliminary investigation conducted by Mr. Munir Ahmad, XEN, Multan Division, as a result of which the appellant had been exonerated and consequently re‑instated in service. He also submitted that the original order of the Governor was passed without observing the provisions of the E & D Rules, 1975. Even the show‑cause notice did not specify any penalty and was defective. On behalf of the respondent the file of the case was put up before us to show that orders of the Governor were obtained for imposing on the appellant the penalty of stoppage of increments.

4. We found froth a perusal of the record of the case that the Governor/ M. L. A. bad not recorded his approval to the penalty. On the summary submitted to him on 20‑1‑1979 proposing the stoppage of two increments of the appellant, the only observation made by the Governor is: "Chairman, P. I. T. to please look into it". Therefore, on the face of it the respondent's order stopping the two increments of the appellant is unauthorised and without sanction of the competent authority.

5. We are also inclined to agree with the appellant's contention that the proceedings under the E & D Rules were not 'conducted properly. Even if it is presumed that the Governor approved the punishment on the summary submitted to him on 20‑1‑1979, it would mean that the punishment had already been imposed before serving the show‑cause notice or taking other proceedings under the E & D Rules, because the show‑cause notice was served nine months later, on 11‑10‑1979. This amounts to pre judging the issue and is certainly not in conformity with the requirements of justice. We also notice from an examination of the record that, apart from the preliminary investigation report submitted by Munir Ahmad, XEN, Multan, on 27‑11‑1979, no enquiry was held nor any order issued dispensing with the enquiry. In the only enquiry conducted against the appellant he was exonerated and there was nothing on record to demolish the finding of the enquiry officer. In fact the enquiry report appears to have been accepted and the appellant in consequence thereof was re‑instated. Even the show-?cause notice failed to specify the statutory requirements as to specification of the action proposed to be taken against him. He was also not provided reasonable opportunity of defence. The notice in question simply specified any penalty under rule 4 of the E & D Rules, 1975, which inter alia included the penalty of "censure". Thus the appellant had a legitimate grievance that he did not know what was the precise penalty which he was up against. In view of the above, we hold the, impugned order to be without any legal effect and set it aside. The appeal is consequently accepted. Appeal accepted.