' The three appeals captioned above arises from the order, dated 18th May, 1982, 29th May, 1982 and 10th April, 1982, respectively, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpindi whereby the grievance petitions of the respondents for setting aside the punishments of W. I. P. Were accepted and the said punishments awarded to them were set aside.
' Muhammad Ali Butt appellant was awarded the punishment of W. I. P. For three years by the D. P.
0. And it was reduced to W. I, P. For two years on appeal.
2. The learned representative has argued that the term W. I. P. Is not known to the rules and the provision of Rule 4 (9) (ii) read with Subsidiary Rule 1 appearing on pages 745 of the Personnel Manual, Volume-I directs to give the period for which the increment is to remain withheld and to mention the fact whether the withholding of increment would have or not the effect of postponing the further increment. Argument is without force. This is true that it is necessary to give the period and to mention whether the punishment would have the effect of postponing further increments but this is wrong that the term W. I. P. As mentioned in Rule is not known to the rules. The terms W. I.
T. And W. I. P. Appear in subsidiary (x) o rules, W. I. P. Means withholding of increment permanently.
The effect of such a punishment is the withholding of increments are not found even the period specified in rules ex facie and the employee loses, therefore, even (sic). The other argument of the representative is that the rules were framed in the beginning by the Governor-General under section 241 of the Government of India Act of 1935 and rule 1702 sub-rule (4) provided the withholding of increments but did not say whether the increments could be withheld permanently or temporarily or that the withholding would have or not the effect of postponing the increments in future, that since there was no such provision in the said rules, subsidiary rules were framed by the General Manager to that effect in 1936, that Rules of 1961 and those rules also were superseded by the present rule of 1975 in which it was expressively provided that the authority withholding the increments should state the period for which the increments were to be withheld. He says that since specific provision was made directing that period for which the increments was to be withheld should be given which provision was absent from the 1961 rules, it could not be avoided ; further that it should be stated in the order of withholding of increment whether are not the order would have the effect of postponing further increments. According to the representative this addition is against the rule framed by the Governor-General and, therefore, is not legal. Ex facie the argument are without force. In the same subsidiary rules No, (i) in which it is mentioned that the punishing authority should specify the period for withholding of increment, it is also directed that the order should state whether or not withholding of increment shall have the effect of postponing future. Increments. This is strange that according to the representative, the provision that the period for which the increments are to remain withheld is legal but the further provision that it should also be stated whether or not the withholding of the increment shall have the effect of postponing future increments is not legal. Both the provisions are given in the same subsidiary rule, and not that the direction of giving the period is given in theB main Rule 4 and that the further provision that it should be stated whether on not withholding the increment shall have the effect of postponing the, further increments is given in the subsidiary rule. The provision of both the provisions is necessary and the punishment of withholding of increments is vague if any one of the same is missing. The same was the position when originally the rules were framed by the Governor-General under section 241 of the Government of India Act of 1935. The objection being untenable-is overruled.
3. The other point raised by the learned representative that the punishment of W. I. P. Is not minor but major and holding of enquiry was necessary. This argument is also without force. Firstly, the punishment of W.I.P. Comes under the head of minor penalties; secondly for awarding major penalties it is the discretion of the authority to decide whether according to the nature of the case making of enquiry is or is not necessary. For making of enquiry is not the interest of Pakistan without making enquiry major penalties can be awarded.
4. The punishment awarded to the appellants are covered by the rules and the learned lower Court as worth held that there is no such provision.
5. As a result of the observation made above I accept the appeals and setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower Court restore the punishment of W. I. P. Awarded to the above- mentioned appellants in departmental appeal.