1. ' CH. EJAZ YOUSAF, J.--- These fifteen appeals and two petitions are directed against separate judgments of different dates passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, since a common question of law is involved in all these cases, therefore, we propose to decide the same through this common judgment.
2. Though facts of each case, in sufficient details, are embodied in the impugned judgments as well as in the memo of appeals/petitions, yet, in order to recapitulate the same, we deem it appropriate to give a brief resume hereunder:--- Civil Appeal No,1341 of 2005 ' In Civil Appeal No,1341 of 2005, allegation against the appellant was that he had taken into possession Motorcycle No,574/0KB under section 550, Cr.P.C. Vide Rapt No,31, dated 20-2-1998 from Abdul Sattar, who was an accused of case F.I.R. No,420 dated 9-12-1997 under section 392, P.P.C.
2. Registered at Police Station "B" Division, Okara and later on its release to the real owner, namely, Nazar Hussain as such he committed misconduct besides showing inefficiency as Sub-Inspector of Police then posted at Police Station Sadar, Renala Khurd. After preliminary enquiry conducted by the D.S.P./C.I.A., Okara, he was to proceed against on the charges detailed in the statement of allegation and charge-sheet, dated 13-5-2000. A.S.P./S.D.P.O. Was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The appellant submitted reply to the charge-sheet denying all the allegations being false and baseless. However, Enquiry Officer submitted adverse enquiry report against him and the appellant was directed to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Okara for personal hearing on 26-11- 2000, who after completing the formality of hearing, ultimately imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement on the appellant. Being aggrieved he filed appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore, Range, Lahore, which was dismissed vide order dated 7-4-2001.
3. Thereafter he filed revision petition before the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, who after hearing the appellant passed order of his reinstatement in service but at the same time, reduced him in rank from. S.-I. To A.S.-I. From the date of compulsory retirement from service. The said order was assailed by the appellant in service appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
4. Civil Appeal No,1648 of 2005 ' In Civil Appeal No,1648 of 2005, appellant Muzaffar Ali, while posted as S.H.O. Police Station Badiana, District Sialkot, was found guilty of misconduct as he had allegedly taken bribe in the sum of Rs,10,000 while conducting raid at the residence of Mst. Irshad Bibi. The appellant was charge- sheeted and accordingly a show-cause notice was also issued to which he submitted reply, denying the allegation. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala, thereupon deputed A.D.I.- G. Gujranwala Range to hold departmental enquiry as a result whereof the appellant was found guilty. On receipt of report the D.I.-G. Passed order, dated 26-12-2000 thereby inflicting major penalty of reduction in rank i.e, from Inspector to Sub-Inspector. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal which was rejected vide order, dated 31-8-2001. He then approached the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, vide Appeal No,2164 of 2001 which too, was dismissed vide judgment, dated 2-10-2002, impugned herein.
5. Civil Appeal No,1700 of 2005 ' In Civil Appeal No,1700 of 2005 the appellant while posted as A.S.-I. In Traffic Staff, Faisalabad, was proceeded against on the charges, inter alia, that he had accepted Rs,1,000 as illegal gratification/ monthly for extending favour to Sajjad Ali of Sunny Motor Workshop for plying vehicles without route permits under his control. Enquiry was dispensed with in view of sufficient incriminating evidence on record and ultimately penalty of reduction in rank from A.S.-I. To Head Constable was inflicted on him vide order, dated which was upheld by the appellate and revisional authorities in the hierarchy of the department. Being aggrieved the appellant approached the Service Tribunal through Appeal No,375 of 2001, which was dismissed vide judgment, dated 22-5-2002 as no legal infirmity was found in the impugned order.
6. Civil Appeal No,1880 of 2005 ' In Civil Appeal No,1880 of 2005 the appellant while posted as Circle Audit Officer in the local Fund Audit Department, was charge-sheeted on account of financial irregularities, including allegation of preparation of bogus/fake pension payment orders of retired employees, corruption, inefficiency and misconduct etc. Enquiry was held. According to the finding of the Enquiry Officer, nine, out of fourteen charges were proved against him. Resultantly, major penalty of reduction in rank was inflicted upon the appellant vide order, dated 4-8-2000. The appellant preferred departmental appeal which was rejected on 7-12-2001. Revision petition filed against the said order was also rejected on 26-1-2002. The appellant then approached the Service Tribunal vide Appeal No,386 of 2002. Learned Tribunal while dismissing the appeal held that despite punishment of reduction in rank awarded to a civil servant, it cannot stop the competent authority from re-considering him for promotion to the grade which he had lost in consequence of punishment at any subsequent stage, meaning thereby that no civil servant stood condemned forever. It was further held that the appellant was not debarred from being re-considered for promotion at any subsequent stage, if improvement was shown.
7. Civil Appeals Nos.1893 and 1894 of 2005 ' Appellant. Zubaida Sahar, Deputy Director Education Officer W(EE) in Civil Appeal No,1893 of 2005 has filed this appeal against the judgment, dated 27-4-2002 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. The Secretary Education, Government of Punjab, has also filed Civil Appeal No,1894 of 2005 against the said judgment. Facts of the case are that appellant Zubaida Sahar was charge-sheeted for being guilty of misconduct on the ground that she had made irregular appointments of P.T.C. Teachers in Mian Channu and Markaz Talamba in the year 1995. The appellant submitted a detailed reply admitting the allegation but stated that she had done so under tremendous political pressure. After conducting enquiry, the appellant was imposed upon major penalty of reduction of three steps down in time scale, vide order, dated 31-12-1997, against which departmental appeal was filed but was of no avail. The appellant then preferred Appeal No,808 of 1998 before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeal converted the penalty of "reduction of the three steps down in time scale" in "reduction to a lower stage in pay scale".
8. Civil Appeal No,1923 of 2005 ' In Civil Appeal No,1923 of 2005, allegation against the appellant was that he had fraudulently drawn a sum of Rs,2,10,984 as advance for purchase of 472 bags chick starter from Messrs International Feeds, Lahore and bogus entry was shown in the feed register. Payment was shown to have been made to the firm concerned but physically no feed was purchased/received. After preliminary enquiry, charge-sheet was served on the appellant on 30-10-1997 along with the statement of allegations which was replied. The Enquiry Committee found the appellant guilty of the charges and recommended for imposition of major penalty of reduction by five stages in the time scale and entry of the' same in his A.C.R. Vide order, dated 30-6-1998. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed departmental appeal before the Secretary, Live Stock and Dairy Development, Lahore, which was dismissed vide order, dated 28-1-1999. The said order was assailed by the appellant in service appeal before the. Punjab Service Tribunal, which was dismissed.
9. Civil Appeal No,17 of 2006 ' In Civil Appeal No,17 of 2006, allegation against the appellant was that while posted at Police Station Shalimar, he had failed to perform his official duty in an appropriate manner. Show-cause notice, dated 9-3-2000 was served on him, to which he furnished reply. However, it was found unsatisfactory by the S.P. Cantt. Division, Lahore. The appellant was held guilty of the charge and awarded punishment of reduction in pay by two stages. Being aggrieved he filed departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore who rejected his appeal vide order, dated 1-2-2001. Thereafter he filed revision petition before the Additional Inspector-General Police, Punjab which too was rejected vide order, dated 20-2-2002. The said order was assailed before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore through appeal which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
10. Civil Appeal No,20 of 2006 ' In Civil Appeal No,20 of 2006, allegation against the appellant was that he had failed to perform his official duties in a proper and appropriate manner in that a copy of order dated 10-9-2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore along with a Writ Petition No,12036 of 2003 (Muhammad Latif v. S.H.O. And others) was received at Police Station Kot Momin. Whereby, local police was abstained from causing harassm ent to the petitioner in that case i.e, Muhammad Latif son of Muhammad Din, caste Dindar resident of Kot Momin, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha. The appellant despite knowledge of the above order unauthorizedly summoned petitioner Muhammad Latif in civil matter. D.S.P./Hqrs. Sargodha was detailed to conduct an inquiry into the matter who, vide his report dated 13-2-2004, held the appellant guilty. The appellant filed reply to the show- cause notice on 27-2-2004. After affording opportunity of personal hearing, the authority imposed penalty of withholding of promotion for one year on the appellant vide his order, dated 15-3-2004.
11. Being aggrieved the appellant filed appeal before the D.I.-G. Police, Sargodha denying all the allegations. D.I.-G. Vide his order, dated 19-1-2005 added the punishment of reduction in pay by five stages to the punishment of withholding of promotion for one year already awarded to him by the D.P.O. Sargodha. The said order was assailed by the appellant in service appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal maintaining the punishment of withholding of promotion for one year as the period of one year for which the said punishment was awarded already expired on 15-3-2005. However, the punishment of reduction in pay by five stages, was converted into reduction in pay by two stages.
12. Civil Appeal No,21 of 2006 ' In Civil Appeal No,21 of 2006, the appellant was proceeded against as a co-accused, under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 on the allegation that on receiving File No,FT-1587 of Plot No,871, Block "D", Faisal Town Scheme in L.A.C. Branch, on 25-6-2001, the appellant Akbar Ali, the then Patwari, firstly raised objection that fresh Fard-e-Malkiat and Chant of Khata should be added, then sent the file to Exemption Branch without getting it signed/routed through Tehsildar and L.A.C. On the fresh application from the applicant, the appellant made a report on 17-7-2001 in File No,FT-1587 and cleared the file without bringing it into the notice of his superiors and that in File No,1045 of Plot No,720 Faisal Town Scheme (along with three other attached files), Mr. Munir Ahmad, Patwari, made his report and the appellant/Qanungo verified the same. Instead of sending the file to Tehsildar of L.A.C. Branch or to L.A.C. They put fake signatures of Malik Tasawar Ejaz, L.A.C. On the file and forwarded the same to the Deputy Director (Exemption).
13. Both the officials confessed their guilt before Malik Tasawar Ejaz and Mr. Rizwan Nazir, L.A.Cs. Inquiry was held and according to the report of Inquiry Officer, charges against the appellant were proved, consequently, major penalty of reduction in pay by three stages in time scale was inflicted on him.
14. After exhausting the departmental remedy, the appellant filed appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal which could not find favour and was dismissed vide, the impugned judgment.
15. Civil Appeal No,1649 of 2005 ' Civil Appeal No,1649 of 2005 has been filed by the Secretary Housing, Urban Development and Public Health Engineering Department, Punjab and two others against the judgment, dated 13-9- 2005 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal in Appeal No,2804 of 2004 whereby penalty of "reduction in pay to lowest stage" on the respondent was ordered to be changed as "reduction in pay to lower stage, (one stage)". In this case the respondent while posted as Assistant Director, Town Planning Multan Development Authority (M.D.A.), Multan, was proceeded against under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, on the allegation that he had unauthorisedly changed the building plan thus, providing favour to the owners of the building in construction, against the actual sanctioned plan/building bye-laws. Enquiry was held. The appellant, having been found guilty, was imposed upon penalty of reduction in pay scale to the initial stage, with the warning to be careful in future. After exhausting his departmental remedy the appellant approached the Punjab Service Tribunal vide Appeal No,2804 of 2004 wherein, the above impugned order was passed.
16. Civil Appeal No,1680 of 2005 ' Respondent Syed Akhtar Raza Zaidi, Deputy Director Food, Multan, was proceeded against on the charges inter alia, for not carrying out mandatory periodic inspections of P.R. Centres of his division; for not distributing the insecticide within the specified period; for not ensuring daily cleaning and unhindered ventilation of wheat stocks, etc. Since the allegations were denied therefore, enquiry was conducted. Having been found guilty, major penalty of reduction in rank to the lower post was inflicted on him. Appeal bearing No,398 of 2003 was preferred by the respondent which was partially allowed and it was ordered that since no period was specified while inflicting the major penalty of reduction in rank to the lower post on the respondent, therefore, it shall be for a period of two years.
17. Civil Appeals Nos.222 to 224 of 2006 and C.P.L.A. No,2870-L of 2004 ' Civil Appeals Nos.222 to 224 of 2006 have been filed by the Chief Secretary, Punjab against the employees, namely, (i) Muhammad Ehsan Khan Sadozai, (ii) Malik Shaukat Hussain and (iii) Tanvir Elahi, whereas C.P.L.A. No,2870-L of 2004 has been filed by Muhammad Ehsan Khan Sadozai against the same judgment.
18. ' Allegation of embezzlement of certain amounts in token tax, registration fee, recovery of C.V.T., etc., were levelled against the respondents/employees for causing loss to the Government exchequer.
19. Show-cause notices were accordingly replied. Enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer, the District Officer/Director Excise and Taxation (Region "A"), Lahore, recommended stoppage of one annual increment for a period of one year in the case of Tanveer Elahi, Malik Shaukat Hussain and Muhammad Ehsan Khan Sadozai, Shaukat Hussain and Nadeem Siddiqui, Junior Clerks, were recommended for stoppage of two increments for a period of two years. The authority did not agree with the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer and issued notice to the respondents calling upon them, as to why the penalty be not enhanced? The notices were duly replied. The authority, after extending personal hearing to the respondents, imposed the following penalties on them:-- "Shaukat Hussain and Muhammad Naeem Siddiqui, Junior Clerks were removed from service, whereas Tanveer Elahi, E&T Officer/Motor Registering Authority, Multan, was reduced to lower post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Multan; Malik Shaukat Hussain, Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Multan, was imposed upon penalty of reduction to lower post of E&T Inspector, whereas Muhammad Ehsan Khan Sadozai, E&T Inspector, Multan was penalized by reduction to the initial stage in his pay scale."
20. ' Their respective appeals to the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, were rejected on 6-2- 2004. The respondents then filed separate appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeals altered the penalty of Mian Shaukat Hussain and Muhammad Naeem Siddiqui from "removal from service" into "reduction to the initial stage in pay scale for a period of two years".
21. C.P.L.A. No, 2947-L of 2003 ' In C.P.L.A. No,2947-L of 2003 the respondent while posted as District Food Controller, Kasur was served with charge-sheet, containing allegations, inter alia, that he did not carry out inspections of P.R. Centre Khuddian; had also failed to take appropriate remedial measures to improve the quality; that on 10-1-2001, at the time of unloading, the condition of the stocks was highly infested and excessive dust was mixed, for which, he failed to ensure the dispatches of FAQ wheat to Lahore due to his lack of supervision and control. Respondent filed reply to the charge-sheet denying the allegations in general. Enquiry was held. The authority did not find the reply satisfactory and proceeded to impose on him the penalty of reduction to a lower post. The review petition filed by him was also not decided as such he filed Service Appeal No,1082 of 2003 before the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed his appeal, however, the period of reduction in rank was set as one year.
3. It has been mainly, contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioner that while imposing penalties on the appellants/ petitioner, amounting to reduction to lower posts, or time scale, or to lower stages in time scale, within the purview of rule 4(1)(b)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, since, in most of the cases, either the appellants/petitioners have been reverted to lower posts more than one stage or reduced in time scale without specifying time, or the time specified does not correspond with gravity of offence, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable. Learned counsel has maintained that the learned Service Tribunal has also gone wrong in law by upholding the same.
4. Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar, learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, has though stated that in view of the evidence in the above cases the appellants/petitioner were rightly punished as charges against them were proved and their guilt was fully brought home yet, candidly conceded that while imposing penalty under the above rules, it was incumbent on the authority to have specified period for which the penalty was imposed but in most of the cases period has not been specified which being contrary to law is unjustified. She further contended that since in C.A. No,1680 of 2005, C.As. Nos.222 to 224 of 2006 and C.P.L.A. No,2870-L of 2004 and in C.P.L.A. No,2947-L of 2003, while imposing penalties, the Tribunal has specified the period as "two years" and "one year" respectively, which does not correspond with gravity of the offence, therefore, it may be enhanced.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the available record with their assistance, minutely.
6. No doubt, departmental authority while inflicting punishment on a civil servant to a lower post or time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale, is competent to impose any sort of penalty permissible under rule 4(1)(b)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 yet, it cannot be inflicted in disregard of Fundamental Rule, 29, which provides that if a government servant, on account of misconduct or inefficiency, is reduced to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in his time scale, then 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. Admittedly, in most of the cases in hand the competent authority while inflicting punishment on the employees has not specified or fixed time for which the penalty has been imposed. The impugned orders, therefore, to that extent, in our view, are not sustainable. Here it would be advantageous to have a glance at rule 4(1)(b)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 as well as F.R.29 which read as follows:--- Penalties.--- (1) The following are the minor and major penalties. Namely:---
(a) Minor Penalties: (i)
22. (ii)
(iii) ................................................................
(iv) ..........................................................................................................................
(b) Major Penalties:
(i) Reduction to a lower post or time-scale, or to a lower stage in time scale; (ii)
(iii) ..........................................................................................................................
(iv) ..............................................
(v) ..........................................................................................................................
23. 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 a postpone future increments and if so, to what extent."
7. Further, penalties of reduction to lower posts or time scale or to a lower stage in time scale have been inflicted on the Appellants/ petitioner beyond one stage which to the extent of reduction to a lower post at least, in our view, is contrary to law because reduction to a "lower post" does not mean reduction to the "lower post". The above quoted rule 4(1)(b)(i) provides reduction to "a" lower post or time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale, which implies that reduction to a lower post should normally be limited to one stage only and not beyond that. However, in time scale it may be to the extent of any stage. The use of word "a" in the above provision is significant because it being multifaceted denotes not only "one" or "any" but at times is used in the plural sense as well and therefore, even if taken in its ordinary dictionary meanings, it may mean "one" where only one is intended and it may mean any one of a greater number. The preposition in hand came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Government of N.-W.F.P. And others v. Farman Ali and others 2005 SCMR 774 and after thorough consideration, it was held that the word "a" is generally used for generalizing the number in plural sense and not particularizing the same as is done by the article "the" and though it might have the impression of C a singular but for that purpose each statute has to be seen in its own perspective and in the background of the legislative intention. It would be instructive to reproduce hereinbelow the relevant discussion from the said judgment, which reads as under:---
(18) First in preference is the word time scale. We are to comprehend its real meanings.
24. 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 progressives."
25. ' 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. However 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 lays 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 of 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 Jowa 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.2d 318, 320, 71 C.A. 2d 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.
26. 794, 795, 141 Mass. 257, 267 and Crown Coach Co. v. Public Service Commission, 179 S.W. 2d 123, 127, 238 Mo. App.
27. 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 sense unless such an intention is clear from the language of statute, is a determination of the word "a" given in Lindley v.
28. Murphy, 56 N.E.2d 832, 838, 387 111, 506 and Dobbs v. Board of County Com'rs of Oklahoma County, 257 P.2d 802, 809, 208 Okl.
29. 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 as 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 reduced. 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 phenomenon 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."
30. ' In the case of Secretary (Schools), Government of the Punjab, Lahore and others v. Muhammad sharif Tirmazi 2004 SCMR 74, major penalty of reduction in pay by three stages lower in time scale was awarded. On appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, the major penalty of reduction in pay scale by three stages was converted to that of minor penalty of withholding of three increments. It was held by this Court that penalty of reduction in pay by three stages lower in time scale could not have been imposed in view of the provision as contained in rule 4(1)(b)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. In the case of Tanvir Ahmed v. Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore 2004 SCMR 647, major penalty of reduction in pay to initial of B-17, was inflicted on the petitioner by the appellate authority which order was upheld by the Punjab Service Tribunal. On appeal to this Court, it was held that since the imposition of punishment of reduction to a lower grade without specifying the period of punishment was in violation of F.R. 29, therefore, it could not have been sustained. Consequently, judgment of the Tribunal was modified thereby restricting the punishment inflicted on the appellant for a period of four years only. In the case of Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad v.
31. Muhammad Umer Morio 2005 SCMR 436, the major penalty of reduction to a lower rank by demoting him from BS-19 to BS-18 of P.S.P. In terms of Rule 4(1)(b)(i) of the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975, was inflicted on the respondent by the departmental authority. On appeal to the Service Tribunal, the penalty imposed on him was set aside. Instead he was censured with all back-benefits viz. Difference to pay and allowances. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal had erred by setting aside the penalty of reduction in rank on the plea that period of penalty was not specified. The contention was repelled and it was laid down that while passing the order imposing the penalty of reduction to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in his time scale, the requirements prescribed in F.R.29 should have been strictly observed. The view expressed in the above quoted judgments also finds support from the case reported as (i) Muhammad Younus v. Secretary, Ministry of Communications and others 1993 SCMR 122 and (ii) Zafar Yasin v.
32. Prime Minister of Pakistan 2002 SCMR 775.
8. Upshot of the above discussion is that in all the above cases, the impugned judgments passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal are upheld. However, the penalties inflicted on the appellants in Civil Appeals Nos.1341, 1648, 1700, 1880, 1893, 1923 of 2005, C.As. Nos.17, 20, 21 of 2006 and on the respondents in Civil Appeals Nos.1649, 1680, 1894 of 2005, C.As. Nos.222, 223, 224 of 2006 and C.P.L.A.
33. No,2947-L of 2003, shall be for a period of three years. C.P.L.A. No,2947-L of 2003 is converted into appeal and is disposed of along with other appeals in the above terms. Resultantly, C.P.L.A.
34. No,2870-L of 2004 is r dismissed.