' SARDAR MUHAMMAD SAJAWAL KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--The appellant Mushtaq Ahmad, Assistant Engineer Mechanical (P.W.D.) has brought this appeal to impugn the order dated 12-7-1987 of Secretary Works Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir by which he on being found guilty of negligence and carelessness in his official duties was punished and his two increments without cumulative effect were stopped. He impugns the Government order dated 26-11-1988 also by which his appeal before the appellate authority (Prime Minister) was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant was found driving a Government vehicle No,AJK-8048 in violation of Traffic Rules on the Public Highway by the Prime Minister, Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir while he was proceeding to Islamabad in a State Car alongwith the President of the State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The appellant was on his way back to Muzaffarabad and while he was crossing Aliot point on seeing the Pilot Vehicle he recklessly placed his vehicle at such a point that the State Car had to get on Katcha Road for safe crossing. Another charge brought against him was to the effect that he supplied second hand tyres for a Pajero vehicle of Prime Minister Secretariat and charged the price thereof as that of new tyres. The appellant was, therefore, proceeded against under Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter to be referred as Efficiency and Discipline Rules). He was supplied with a charge-sheet by the Authorized Officer and Mir Bashir Hussain, Executive Engineer, Highways Division was appointed as Inquiry Officer to probe into the allegations brought against him. The Inquiry Officer has not absolved him fully of the first charge. It is admitted by the Inquiry Officer that the appellant was driving the vehicle in violation of rules. He is of the opinion that the appellant had become nervous at the sight of the State Car approaching him and failed to keep his vehicle aside from the road. As regards second charge he reported that the appellant was either ignorant about the actual facts of the replacement of tyres or he was careless enough to check up the old tyres. The appellant brought a review petition before the appellate authority (Prime Minister) against the penalty imposed upon him but he was not successful in that petition and finally he has invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal through the present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1975. The appellant feels aggrieved by the impugned order because he considers it to he against law and actual facts of the case.
According to him the Inquiry Officer had exonerated him of the charges and he has been punished unheard without issue of any show-cause notice.
3. The appeal was admitted for regular hearing on 9-1-1989 and the respondents were called upon to file their written objections, if any. In their written objections, it was submitted by the respondents that the appellant was rightly punished for his carelessness and dereliction of duty.
4. The appellant's prayer is that the impugned order being contrary to law and facts be set aside and the punishment awarded to him be annulled.
5. We have examined the record as was brought on the file and have also heard the arguments as were addressed at the bar by the learned counsel of each party. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that a show-cause notice was essential to be issued to the appellant against the penalty proposed to be taken against him, but no notice was given to him and he was condemned unheard. This argument is not supported by the record on the file. We find that a minor penalty like stoppage of increment was imposed upon the appellant after the authorised officer had given him the full opportunity of showing cause before him against the proposed action. Under Rule 7-A of Efficiency and Discipline Rules a separate show-cause notice is not necessary in the cases where a reasonable opportunity is granted to an aggrieved civil servant before recording punishment against him. The appellant has been awarded the punishment of minor penalty despite of the fact that he had formerly earned two warnings for his dereliction of duty.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that we find no extenuating circumstances to allow this appeal. In our opinion the appellant has already been treated leniently and deserves no more indulgence at this stage. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.