' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). - Mr. Abdus Salam Khan, Executive Engineer, Provincial Buildings Division, Muzaffargarh has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Government of Punjab through Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works Department, Lahore as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 21st February, 1983 and 9th May, 1983/12th May, 1983 be set aside and appellant's two annual increments be ordered to be restored.
3. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was posted, as Executive Engineer, Provincial Buildings Division, Kasur, the construction work of District Agricultural Workshop at Kasur was carried out in his incumbency. While examining revised estimate of this scheme and studying the case, some irregularities were noticed. The appellant was given a show-cause notice under rule 6
(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 by Secretary, Government of Punjab, Communication and Works Department in August, 1982 (detailed at Annexure 'A'). The appellant submitted his detailed reply to the show-cause notice on 25th October, 1982. The appellant was served with another show-cause notice under rule 6(4) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. The appellant submitted a reply to this show-cause notice also. The appellant was heard in person and was imposed a penalty of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect by Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works Department vide his order, dated 21st February, 1983. The appellant made a revision petition to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab Communication and Works Department, Lahore which was considered by the Government and rejected vide order, dated 9th May, 1983 of the Government of Punjab, Communication and Works Department, Lahore. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties i,e, Mr. Masud Ahmed Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A. G.
Humayun,' learned District Attorney assisted with the help of the representative of the Department.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that whatever changes in the structure/design, extravagant electric provisions were made on the request of the Agriculture Engineer, Lahore Division, Lahore of the Agriculture Department who was Incharge of the Workshop.
The construction work of the Workshop was continuously being checked by the representative of the Agriculture Department and the alteration had to be made as required by the Agriculture Engineer of the Agriculture Department so that there is no defect in the Workshop and it could be utilized for the purpose for which it was being constructed. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Annexure 'F' of the appeal and has mentioned that the appellant had referred the matter to the Superintending Engineer, IIIrd Provincial Buildings Circle, Lahore vide his letter, dated 22nd March, 1980 getting the approval from him by mentioning that due to the changes in the scope of the work as per demand of the concerned Department the expenditure on this work would be enhanced from Rs, 9.50 lacs to Rs, 15 lacs. He has referred to the footnote of the S. E. On this very letter wherein these enhancements were approved by the Superintending Engineer. It has been vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the approval for the enhancement of the works was obtained by the appellant from the competent authority and also the reasons thereof for the same were brought to his notice. Concluding his arguments, it has been pointed out by the appellant's counsel that the appellant has been punished arbitrarily and without his fault.
6. The learned District Attorney has, however, rebutted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents by mentioning that the appellant has failed to obtain modification in the plan, etc. From the Architect or to get revised administrative approval before undertaking the execution of the work under such provisions and designs which increased the costs far in excess of the administrative approval.
Thus, the appellant is responsible for the financial indiscipline and has been punished correctly and lawfully.
7. On our querry, however, the learned District Attorney representative of the Department could not satisfy us as how the appellant has-been held responsible and punished when the alleged enhancement had been duly approved by the Superintending Engineer, IIIrd Provincial Buildings Circle, Lahore.
8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record in this case. It is necessary to refer to the letter, dated 22nd February, 1980 from the appellant to the Superinrending Engineer Illrd Provincial Buildings Circle, Lahore (Annexure 'F') which clinches the whole issue. Paras. Nos, 1 and 2 of this letter are reproduced as below :- "It is stated that the abovenoted work since allotted to Messrs Al-Ikram Interprises as per approval accorded vide your letter No, G-265/816/C, dated 27th February, 1979 for Rs, 9.50 lacs has been increased due to the change in the scope of the work as per demand of the concerned Department, as such the expenditure on this work will exceed the agreemented amount from Rs, 9.50 lacs to Rs, 15 lacs.
' In view of the above it is requested that approval may kindly be accorded to enhance the amount from Rs, 9.50 lacs to Rs, 15 lacs for proceeding further in the matter. Agreement of the work is also only determined."
' The footnote giving sanction on this very letter for the enhancement by the Superintending Engineer is also reproduced below "The increase is not due to the changes in scope of work but due to changes of design of roof of store and workshop as per requirements of Agriculture Department.
Enhancement approved. (Sd.)
Superintending Engineer."
' The above facts of the case show that the appellant has got the enhancement approved from the Superintending Engineer Illrd Provincial Building Circle Lahore and he cannot be held responsible for the irregularities as mentioned in the show-cause notice.
9. The upshot of the above discussion of the case is that the appellant is not at fault. The appeal is accepted and the impugned orders, dated 21st February, 1983 and 9th May, 1983/I2th May, 1983 are set aside. The appellant's two annual increments without cumulative effect are ordered to be restored.