1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-This petition, under Article 212 of the Constitution, seeks special leave to appeal against an order made by the Punjab Service Tribunal at Lahore on the 21st of November, 1979, by which the service appeal filed by the petitioner against an order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, was dismissed.
2. At the relevant time, the petitioner Abdul Hafiz was serving as Sub Divisional Officer, IInd Provincial Building Sub-Division, Rawalpindi. He got certain works executed, and bills amounting to Rs.
3. 43,892,24 were passed for payment in August, 1968, by the then Executive Engineer, and their payment was made in October, 1968. Subsequently another officer took office as an Executive Engineer, Rawalpindi, and he re-opened the transaction as he doubted the genuineness of the works, and placed the said amount in the Public Works Miscellaneous Advance as recoverable from the petitioner. Before, however, any recovery could be made, the petitioner himself was promoted and posted as Executive Engineer, Rawalpindi, and in that capacity he regularised the matter, with the alleged prior approval of the then Superintending Engineer.
4. When this matter came to the notice of the higher authorities, he was charge-sheeted on the 24th of September, 1974. An Inquiry Officer was appointed, who found the petitioner guilty on this charge for the reason that the petitioner could not himself clear the miscellaneous advance from his own name even though he had become the Executive ".14, engineer of the Division, and he had not been able to prove that he bad obtained the prior consent of the Superintending Engineer. After the service of a show-cause notice an order was made by the Governor of the Punjab, on the 12th of May, 1976, imposing upon the petitioner the penalty of stoppage of two increment with cumulative effect.
5. The petitioner's review petition was dismissed on the 4th of the October. 1976, and his appeal has been dismissed by the Service Tribunal on the 21st of November, 1979.
6. Leave to appeal is sought on the following grounds:
(a) That the allegations levelled against the petitioner, even if proved, would not amount to misconduct; and
(b) That the penalty of withholding of two. Increments with cumulative effect could not be imposed under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of 1960, or even under the amended rules of 1975.
7. After examining the relevant rules, and considering the elaborate submission made by Mr. Ansari, we are, of the view that there is no merit in both the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, According to the definition contained in clause (5) of rule 2 of the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, 'misconduct' means- "(i) violation of Government Servants Conduct Rules;
(ii) breach of service discipline or instructions issued by Government;
(iii) committing offences involving moral turpitude."
8. Now, in the present case, the allegation against the petitioner was that he acted in violation of the departmental instructions inasmuch as he himself/ cleared the amount, on his promotion to the post of Executive Engineer ~, which had been placed in the Public Works Miscellaneous Advance by his Executive Engineer as the latter had doubted the genuineness of the works for/ which the disputed amount had been paid by the petitioner in his capacity as Sub-Divisional Officer. The petitioner himself realised that the could not pass orders in his own case as Executive Engineer, and therefore, he had pleaded before the Inquiry Officer -that he had obtained the permission of the Superintending Engineer, an assertion which. He could not prove by cogent evidence. It is futile to argue that as the competent authority to clear the amount was the Executive Engineer, the petitioner could himself pass such an-order on his promotion as Executive Engineer, even though the irregularity, alleged was against himself in his capacity as Sub-Divisional Officer. The argument has only to be stated to see that it is devoid of all legal and moral substance. For the purposes of this particular item the petitioner continued to remain a Sub-Divisional Officer, and the clearance of the amount had to be made by another Officer exercising the powers of the Executive Engineer.
9. Thai Inquiry Officer as well as the Service. Tribunal were, therefore, right in holding that the petitioner had been guilty of misconduct as he had acted clearly in violation of the relevant Government instructions on the subject, as contained an the P. W. D. Manuhl As regards the second contention, we find that in 1960, clause (b) of rule 4 provided that one of the penalties, which could be imposed upon a Government servant could be "withholding of increment with or without cumulative ,effect, including stoppage at 'an efficiency three years", However, this rule was mended in 1969, and re-worded as follows: "'Withholding, for a specified period, of promotion or increments otherwise than. For unfitness for promotion or financial advancement in accordance with the rules of orders pertaining to the service or post,1.
10. It is not necessary to refer to the Rules of 1975, as the present case is governed by the rules applicable at the tittle when the proceedings were commenced against the petitioner by the service of a charge-sheet, which happened on the ?4th of September, 1974,if the matter was governed by the unamended Rules of 1960, there could -have been no -difficulty at all, for clause
(b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 4 clearly dated the- stopage of increment with -or without mutive effect.
11. However, these words do not find any mention in the amended rule, which merely provides for the Stoppage of increment for a specified period. If no ;further order is made, then the logical effect of the stoppage of increments would be that the Government servant concerned would earn the next increment only after the expiry of the specified period, and thus his future increments in the time- scale concerned shall remain permanently postponed to that extent. It seems to us, therefore, that the amended rule, in fact, provides for stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, and such an effect can be avoided only if the competent authority clearly expresses its intention to the contrary by directing that, after the expiry of the specified period, the original increments shall be restored, i. e. The stoppage would be without cumulative effect. It follows, therefore, that by directing that the stoppage of. The petitioner's increments shall be with cumulative effect, the competent authority has only given effect to, and trot traversed beyond the ambit of, the amended rule.
12. On this view of the matter, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.