' CH. HASAN NAWAZ (MEMBER).--While he was serving with the respondents as Senior Storekeeper, on 3-9-1980, the appellant was served with charge-sheet dated 28-8-1980 (Annex. C) along with statement of allegations (Annex. D). These documents bear out that eight different allegations were made against him, which, if established, would have amounted to misconduct, making him liable for any of the penalties mentioned in rule 4 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978.
2. He submitted written statement (Annex. E) on 16-9-1980, denying the correctness of allegations made against him. The written statement was considered and after the expiry of about nine months, he was served with show cause notice dated 27-6-1981 (Annex. F). It appears from this notice that his explanation was not found satisfactory and that according to the competent authority it had been proved that he was guilty of misconduct and insubordination. On 21-7-1981, he submitted his explanation in writing (Annex. G).
3. Although notice dated 27-6-1981 (Annex. F) was apparently meant to be final, on 5-8-1981 an office order (Annex. H) was passed appointing Muhammad Ashraf, S.D.O. As an Inquiry Officer to "investigate the charges levelled against the appellant". The Inquiry Officer submitted his report (Annex. J) on 18-8-1981. On 27-8-1981, he was served with another notice (Annex. K) calling upon him to show cause why penalty of stoppage of increment should not be imposed against him under rule 4 of the Rules. It purports to be a final show-cause notice under rule 5(v)(a) of the rules.
4. After examination of his explanation (Annex. L) submitted on 12-9-1981, the competent authority passed the first impugned order dated 19-10-1981 (Annex. M), whereby the appellant's annual increment due on 1-12-1981 was stopped without future effect.
5. On 17-12-1981, he filed a departmental appeal (Annex. N) against order dated 19-10-1981. About six months later, on 22-6-1982, the penalty imposed against the appellant was enhanced by the Chief Engineer (respondent No, 2) with the following order:- "Consequent upon the consideration of the appeal lodged by Mr. Hukam Din, Senior Storekeeper, I, Chief Engineer, GSO Wapda, Lahore as a competent authority hold Mr. Hukam Din, Senior Storekeeper guilty of the charges leveled against him and award him the following punishment instead of the one awarded by the Superintending Engineer.
' Reduction of his pay by one stage."
6. On 21-7-1982, the appellant challenged the validity of order dated 22-6-1982, in another departmental appeal (Annex. P) submitted to the General Manager, Wapda, (respondent No, 3) on the ground that the penalty imposed earlier by the Superintending Engineer (respondent No, 1) against him was enhanced on appeal without giving him an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. Having failed to receive any reply, he addressed a representation to respondent No, 3 on 5-5-1983. It was prayed that his appeal dated 21-7-1982 may be decided and orders dated 19-10-1981 and 22-6-1982 be set aside with consequential benefits. Eventually, on 7-9- 1983, he received letter dated 18-8-1983 (Annex.-T) endorsed to him on 29-8-1983, which informed that his appeal had been rejected by the General Manager (Power), WAPDA.
7. On 2-10-1983, he filed the present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, where it was prayed that the impugned orders dated 19-10-1981 and 22-6-1982 may be set aside as being illegal.
8. During the course of arguments on 4-12-1988, the appellant gave up his appeal against order dated 19-10-1981 imposing minor penalty (Annex. M). He stated that his appeal against impugned order dated 22-6-1982 awarding major penalty may be decided on merits.
9. The facts of the case leave little room for any discussion in so far as the order of enhancement of penalty is concerned. There is no denial of the fact that before the passage of order dated 22-6- 1982, enhancing the penalty, the appellant was not served with any show-cause notice. There is nothing on the record to bear out that he was given any opportunity to plead against the action proposed to be taken against him. Even an opportunity of personal hearing was not offered.
10. The enhancement of penalty without giving the appellant an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action was evidently in violation of fundamental principles of natural justice. This amounted to condemnation without hearing him in defense. If, Alter examination of his appeal, it was decided that the facts justified a severer penalty, the appellate Authority was legally bound to afford him an opportunity to establish that the enhancement of penalty was not warranted on the basis of material on the record. The appellate Authority's failure to comply with this legal requirement, obviously resulted in gross miscarriage of justice, and we do not feel any hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 22-6-1982, is not legally sustainable. We do not find it possible to uphold the respondent's action which is in clear and wanton disregard of the principles of natural justice and the Supreme Court's dictum laid down in Sycd Mir Muhammad v.
Government of N.-W.F.P. PLD 1981 SC 176.
11. The appeal is accordingly accepted and the order dated 22-6-1982 imposing major penalty against the appellant is set aside. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs under the circumstances of this appeal. 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.