1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--- The appellant was an employee of WAPDA and posted as a Line Superintendent Grade-II when on 4-7-1984 he was served with a charge-sheet, along with two other employees of WAPDA, charging him with having received illegal gratification from the villagers of Chak No.248-GB while preparing the estimates for new connections of the said Chak.
2. The appellant, after proper proceedings, was found to have committed misconduct and the competent authority vide order dated 17-2-1985 imposed upon him the penalty, inter alia, of reduction to the initial stage in the Time Scale. The appeal of the appellant filed against the said order was rejected on 17-3-1986. He did not agitate the matter any further.
3. However, some 15 months later, the appellant received a show-cause notice stating that the question of adequacy or otherwise of the punishment imposed upon him vide order passed on 17- 2-1985 needed re-examination and he was asked to show cause why the Authority should not suitably enhance the punishment in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Rule 12 of Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978.
4. Rule 12 is in the following terms:- "12. Revision.--The Authority may, either on receipt of a specific reference or of its own motion, at any time, call for any case in which proceedings may have been instituted under these rules, and pass such orders (including orders reversing acquittal or enhancing the penalty imposed) as it may deem fit, and orders so passed shall be final.
5. Note.-In case where the Authority decides to enhance the penalty imposed by the competent authority, a show-cause notice will be issued and the accused will be given an opportunity of being heard in person."
6. The Authority, after considering the reply to the show-cause notice, passed an order on 1-8-1987 whereby the punishment of reduction to the initial stage of the time-scale already awarded to the appellant was enhanced and instead the penalty of removal from service was imposed.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the last-mentioned order, the appellant filed an appeal against it before the Federal Service Tribunal. This was dismissed vide judgment of the Tribunal dated 27-3-1989. He then moved this Court seeking leave to appeal and leave to appeal was granted by this Court to consider whether the penalty was imposed on the appellant vide order dated 17-2-19F had not attained finality (on account of rejection of the departmental appeal c 17-3-1986) and if it could subsequently be reviewed or enhanced to the prejudice of the appellant?
8. Ch. Muhammad Farooq, learned counsel for the appellant, he advanced two arguments in support of this appeal; firstly, that Rule 12 c Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E & D) Rules, 1978, violates the protection conferred by Article 13 of the Constitution against double punishment in sofa under the said Article 13 no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once and secondly, that even if Rule 12 was not ultra vires of the Constitution the action taken against the appellant was not take in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12 aforesaid.
9. In support of his first contention. Learned counsel relied on a judgment of a Single Bench of the Lahore High Court in the case of Abdur Razzak Malik v The Water and Power Development Authority through its Chairman and 3 others (PLD 1973 Lahore 188) where it was held that Maxim: "Nemo debet lis vexari prouna et eadem" (none shall be twice vexed for one and same cause) was applicable to civil as well as criminal proceedings and the employee once charge-sheeted and punished by the competent authority cannot be charge-sheeted and punished again in respect of the same charge.
10. This judgment, in the circumstances of this case, is of not much avail to the appellant. Apart from the fact that Rule 12 of Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E & D) Rules, 1978, was not in force when the precedent case was decided; the aforesaid precedent case is also clearly distinguishable- The facts of the said case were that the petitioner therein, Abdul Razzaq, was firstly issued a charge- sheet on 7-11-1966 and an Inquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the matter and as a result of the Inquiry the petitioner received an order from the authority on 16-8-1967 administering a severe warning to him. Notwithstanding the said order, the petitioner was issued a second chargesheet on 26-7-1968 and another Inquiry Officer was appointed and on the basis of the inquiry report of the second Inquiry Officer he was ultimately dismissed by the Authority.
11. This is not at all the situation in the present case. The appellant herein was issued only one charge- sheet and as a result of the inquiry held m pursuance thereof he was awarded the punishment contained in the order dated 17-2-1985 by the competent Authority. The aforesaid punishment being considered inadequate by the revisional authority subsequently a show-cause notice was issued under its revisional powers i.e. Under Rule 12 which confers on the: authority to pass an order to enhance, in suitable cases, the penalty already imposed by a competent Authority. .
12. Accordingly, this is not a case of punishing a person twice for the same offence. This is a case of a normal exercise of revisional powers by the Authority in fit cases. No violation of Article 13 of the Constitution has, therefore, occurred in this case, nor is Rule 12 in any way violative of the provisions of Article 13 of the Constitution.
13. Coming to the second submission namely that the order passed has not been passed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12, it is argued that according to the said Rule where the Authority decides to enhance the penalty imposed by the competent authority, it should not only issue a show-cause notice to the accused before proceeding to take action under the said Rule but must also give an opportunity to the accused person of being heard. In this case, it is submitted that the appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard in person.
14. This submission, we find after scrutinising the record, is not wellfounded.
15. In the comments filed on behalf of the respondents before the Service Tribunal it has been explained that on the receipt of the report from the Wafaqi Mohtasib Secretariat it was decided to review the case of the appellant under Rule 12 of the Rules and so far as the matter of not affording the appellant an opportunity of being heard is concerned, it has categorically been stated that "it is incorrect that the accused was not afforded the opportunity of personal hearing". This assertion is elaborated by pointing out that "he was got noted the Letter No.7306/51 dated 16-7-1987 and also confirmed by the SDO(E) WAPDA, Lahore vide his No.1770 dated 18-7-1987 and the S.E.(E) WAPDA, Jhang (respondent No.3) personally attended the same meeting and found the appellant present before the Authority on the date i.e. 19-7-1987".
16. The case of the appellant is that undoubtedly he had attended the office of the Chairman Wapda on 19-7-1987 but that he was not called inside his room when his case was reviewed in the meeting of the Author;ty and that it was, in the aforesaid circumstances, that he was denied the right of personal hearing. But the comments reproduced above show that the Superintending Engineer WAPDA (respondent No.3) had personally attended the same meeting and found the appellant present before th, Authority on the date i.e. 19-7-1987. These recitals show that the assertion That the accused was not afforded the opportunity of personal hearing is not correct. At least it is a disputed matter. Hence, we are inclined to agree with the Service Tribunal that the appellant has failed to adduce any material to establish his assertion that he was not afforded a personal hearing before the order of removal was passed and his objection that this action has been taken without hearing him cannot be given effect to.
17. The result is that we find no force in this appeal, which is dismissed hereby. No costs.