' ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER).--The appellant when posted as Range Forest Officer in 1985 was proceeded against departmentally on charges of misconduct and corruption for having connived in the illicit cutting of trees. On the conclusion of the formal enquiry, he was awarded the following punishments by the competent authority under the impugned order dated 23-11-1986.
(a) Reduced to the minimum of pay scale.
(b) Recovery of three forth of loss of Rs,12,096.
(c) Stoppage of next five increments with future effect when due. Period of suspension treated as such.
2. The appeal filed by him against the above orders before the appellate authority was rejected on 31-3-1987 being time-barred against which the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal wherein he has come up with the following main contentions:-
(i) Respondent No, 1 (Chief Conservator of Forests) is not the authority in the case of the appellant.
(ii) Instead of the Conservator of Forests (not impleaded in this appeal) respondent No, 1 should have issued the show-cause notice.
(iii) The appellant was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and some documents/evidence produced by him were not recorded.
(iv) The appellant has been awarded punishments which are more than permissible under the law.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned D.A. At length and also carefully gone through the record produced before the Tribunal. The West Pakistan Forest Department Delegation of Powers Rules, 1962 as amended vide Government of Punjab's Notification No, SORI(S&GAD)15-6/73, dated 8-6-1976 clearly prescribe the Chief Conservator of Forests and the Conservator as the Authority and the Authorised Officer respectively in the case of officers of the level of appellant. The aforesaid first two objections are thus against facts and, therefore, unacceptable.
4. The appellant's contention that during the enquiry proceedings he was not allowed to cross- examine witnesses is belied by the record of the enquiry produced before us which gives ample proof that this opportunity was not denied to him. That the objection is an afterthought is evident from the fact that he had not mentioned these omissions before the Authorised Officer or the Authority or in his appeal filed with the appellate authority.
5. His contention that he has been awarded punishment which is more than permissible under the law is correct but only partly. Under Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1975 one or more of the penalties mentioned in Rule 4 ibid may be imposed on a civil servant.
Since Rule 4 mentions major and minor penalties both, any one of them or more than one of these penalties can, therefore, be imposed. However, sub-rule 1(a)(iii) of Rule 4 provides for stoppage of increments for a specified period only. This means that an increment cannot be ordered to be stopped with future effect. Although no specific prayer has been made in the appeal on this particular point, nevertheless this much portion of the impugned order dated 23-11-1986 being defective and void ab initio is hereby modified to that extent. The punishment mentioned against
(iii) in the impugned Order No, 74/CCFZ, dated 23-11-1986 shall now read as under:- "(iii) His next five increments, when due, are stopped without future effect."
6. With these observations and subject to the direction given in the preceding paragraph the appeal is dismissed. There are no orders as to costs.