' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).- This is an appeal by Mrs. S, R, Malik against the notification dated 12t11 duly, 1981 issued by the Government, Education Department, under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1960, for stoppage of her two annual increments with cumulative effect and further recovery of Government loss amounting to Rs, 24,855/25 in monthly instalments of Rs, 400 from her pay or in lump sum if she is granted Selection Grade.
2. The material facts are that the enquiry was originally conducted against the appellant in 1970 when she was served with a charge-sheet regarding certain irregularities alleged to have been committed during her tenure as District Inspectress of Schools, Sargodha and Lyallpur. The charges were investigated through an Inquiry Officer and, on completion of the enquiry, a final order for her removal from service was passed by the Government vide notification dated 4th December, 1970.
The appellant challenged the departmental action taken against her, by means of a writ petition, which was accepted by the Lahore High Court and the order of her removal from service was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect in its judgment dated 5th July, 1972.
Consequently the Government reinstated her but went in appeal before the Supreme Court.
3. During the pendency of this appeal, the Education Department took up the case under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 and passed an order for recovery of the loss, caused through theft in 1967, from the appellant as a result of the previous enquiry held against her in 1970. This order was challenged by her in an earlier appeal which was accepted by this Tribunal on 15th June, 1980 and the case was remanded to the Department for proceeding afresh in accordance with law. The departmental appeal was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 17th July, 1980 as having become infructuous.
4. Thereafter, the Secretary Education issued a fresh show-cause notice dated 29th September, 1980, under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1960, to the appellant on the basis of the same enquiry conducted against her in 1970 and consequently passed the aforesaid order of punishment which is impugned in this appeal.
5. Lengthy arguments were put forward by both the parties and our attention was drawn to the background and other circumstances of this long-outstanding enquiry, but we shall deal only with the contentions which are necessary for the purpose of deciding the instant appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised an objection that invocation of the provisions of the E and D Rules, 1960 in the enquiry which had already been completed and the final order passed thereon against the appellant before coming into force of the E and D Rules, 1975 is illegal and without jurisdiction as having not been saved by the new rules. The learned District Attorney appearing for the Government, referring to the order of the Supreme Court, argued that the Department has rightly proceeded against her from the stage from which the previous proceedings had been declared to be without lawful authority by the High Court. However, the legal position on this controversy is sufficiently reflected in our previous order and that of the Supreme Court.
Accordingly the Department took up the case for a conscious decision on certain charges which were included in the show-cause notice dated 29th September, 1980.
6. We now come to the question whether there is sufficient material available on the record to justify the passing of the impugned order.
' On this point, the learned counsel for the appellant urged that there is no justification for stoppage of the increments in addition to recovery of the whole pecuniary loss for which no specific charge has been framed in the charge sheet dated 31st July, 1969 nor such punishment has been proposed in the last show-cause notice dated 29th September, 1980 except charge No, 4 which relates to non-compliance of the Government orders to refund the money and was dropped in the enquiry held in 1970. He has further urged that since this charge has been excluded from the present show-cause notice, the appellant stands exonerated of the act which resulted in the loss of Government money and the recovery was deemed to have been waived and should have been written off under Rules 18.4 and 18.5 of Punjab Financial Rules, Vol. 1 after the completion of the enquiry in 1970.
7. In this context, we asked the learned District Attorney to apprise us of any charge which possibly relates to recovery of the loss. He submitted that the Department relied on charge No, 3 for passing the impugned order. This charge is regarding prohibition, through a telegraphic order dated 23rd June, 1967, for utilization of some grants and not for recovery of the loss. We are, however, not inclined to agree with this view because the exact nature of the alleged loss was not conveyed to the appellant in order to assess her personal liability in accordance with the provisions of the relevant financial rules. This appears to be a fit case for condo nation of the loss under the above- cited financial rules.
' As a result of the above discussion, we are satisfied that the impugned order based on the enquiry which was conducted against the appellant in 1970 is not justified being violative of the relevant rules and is accordingly set aside. We accept the appeal but, in the circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.