Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Manzoor Ahmed, appellant is a sorter in MST, Quetta. He was proceeded against under the Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 and awarded penalty of reduction in pay by one stage for one year vide order dated 22.01.2011. His departmental appeal dated 10.02.2011 was not responded. Hence this appeal.
2. A charge sheet was issued to the appellant on 06.08.2011. It was stated that on 29.12.1987 he had been given penalty of recovery of Rs, 850/; that on 17.01.2001 he was censured; that his one increment was stopped vide order dated 31.08.2000 and that he had earned average, below average and poor ACRs, The charge sheet was issued to him by the Divisional Superintendents Post Offices in his capacity as authorized officer. Mr. Muhammad Bashir Jamali, ASPO, Quetta was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The charges were proved. Consequently the appellant was awarded the penalty in question.
3. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the appellant had been dealt with strictly in accordance with law and was awarded penalty after a regular inquiry.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. On the charges mentioned above, the case of the appellant was placed before the review committee on 06.03.2002 for consideration of his retirement under Section 13 of the. Civil Servants Act. Section 13 says that a civil servant shall retire from service when he completes 20 years of service qualifying for pension and when no direction is given for his retirement, on the completion of 60 years of his age. Under this provision of law the appellant could not be given the penalty in question. Either he could be retired prematurely on completion of 20 years of service on the basis of his bad record or the proceedings could be dropped. The respondents had committed an illegality in issuing a regular charge sheet to him for the charges for which he had already been penalized. Article 13 of the Constitution bars double vexation for the charges levelled against the appellant he had already been awarded penalties. He could be given another penalty like the one impugned in this appeal. Whereas the previous penalties, when read together, may give rise to a fresh cause of action for the premature retirement of a civil servant, such penalties per se are not sufficient to award a lesser penalty of reduction in pay or any other penalty provided in the Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973. We are reiterating that on the charges levelled against the appellant under Section 13 of the Civil Servants Act the proceedings could either culminate into his premature retirement or into dropping of the proceedings. The respondents could not opt for a via media.
6. In view of the above, we hold that the penalty awarded to the appellant was not legal. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside.
7. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties shall be informed.