2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).

Appellant Amir Hamza is a Revenue Officer in the service of the respondents. He was served with an explanation letter dated 4-6-1999 in which allegations of negligence tantamounting to misconduct were levelled against him. He was awarded penalty of withholding of increments till retirement vide order, dated 25-10-1999. The legality and. validity of 'order, dated 25-10-1999 has been challenged by him in his present appeal filed under section 4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973.

2. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that penalty was imposed, upon the appellant after observance of all the procedural formalities. It is also stated that the explanation offered by the appellant was found unsatisfactory.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that penalty imposed upon the appellant being for an indefinite period cannot be sustained. We have gone through the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978. Minor penalties are provided in Rule 4(1)(a). Sub-rule (ii) provides for withholding of increments. It says that increments can be withheld for a specific period. The competent authority had committed an illegality by stopping the increments of the appellant till retirement. We are told that the appellant has still 18 years to serve. The competent authority was not justified in withholding the increments of the appellant till his retirement. This punishment, if sustained, shall always be an obstruction in the promotion of the appellant to the higher rank. Even if the appellant earns good reports and gives performance he would not be promoted. This is against the spirit of law that the promotion of a civil servant is stopped till his retirement. We are of the view that increments can be stopped for a specific period in terms of years. It cannot be ordered by the competent authority that civil servant shall not get increments till his retirement. The order being vague cannot be sustained.

5. The appellants has been allowed to remain in service. If he had committed misconduct of serious nature major penalty could be imposed upon him. He could be removed, dismissed or retired from service. But once he was allowed to remain in service the stigma of punishment should have been removed from his career after a certain period. It cannot be expected of him to work to the best of his ability by carrying over that stigma till his retirement. It is against the principles of `good governance' also to allow this stigma to continue till his retirement. The agony of the civil servant has to end after a certain period. The words `specified period' mentioned in Rule 4(1)(a)(ii) (ibid) signify a reasonable period and not an unreasonable period depending on the gravity of charge. Stoppage of increments till retirement tantamounts to stoppage for an unreasonable period and is, therefore, against spirit of law.

6. For the reasons given above we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Keeping in view the gravity of the charge levelled against the appellant we direct that the appellant shall not be entitled to annual increments for a period of three years.

7. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed. H.B.T./62/FST Order accordingly.