' NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).---Appellant Altaf Hussain while serving as Lower Division Clerk in the Adjudication Branch of South Zone under the Collectorate of Central Excise and Sales Tax, Customs House, Lahore was served with a charge-sheet on 5-5-1993. The charge levelled against the appellant in substance is that show-cause notice in respect of a seizure case against M/s. Paintagone Wire and Cables Industry Defence Road Lahore, was received by the appellant on 7-7-1992, but he did not put up a fair copy of show-cause notice till 14-7-1992. This resulted in the notice being time-barred as the last date of show-cause notice was 11-7-1992. Again the fair copy after the signatures was received by him on 30-7-1992 and he issued it on 8-9-1992. As a result the period for show-cause notice expired and no action could be taken thereon according to law.
2. The appellant replied to the show-cause notice explaining his position. His reply having not been found satisfactory, an inquiry was held against him. The Inquiry Officer after thoroughly examining the case concluded as under:- "After going through the facts of the case, statement of allegation, written and verbal reply of the accused and co-accused, scrutiny of the case file and on the basis of the findings of the cross- examination of both the officials, I hold Mr. Altaf Hussain responsible for not timely putting the file, to the adjudicating officer which subsequently resulted in issuance of time-barred show-cause notice. It is, therefore, recommended that disciplinary action may be taken against Mr. Altaf Hussain L.D. Clerk as provided under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973."
3. The appellant was thereafter served with a show-cause notice on 21-7-1993 alongwith report of the Inquiry Officer, which he replied on 2-8-1993 reiterating the facts which he had narrated in his reply to the charge-sheet. Resultantly the appellant was awarded minor penalty of withholding of six increments with recurring effect by order, dated 3rd September, 1993. The appellant challenged this order by way of his departmental appeal dated 14-104993. On his appeal, the appellate authority modified the penalty of withholding of six increments into withholding of three increments with immediate effect by order dated 16-11-1994. The appellant having failed to get redress departmentally approached this Tribunal by way of the present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
4. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that no proper inquiry was held in this case, charge has not been proved and that the penalty is defective. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the original show-cause notice the major penalty was not indicated and subsequently on being pointed out it was specified by way of corrigendum which course is illegal. It was also urged that the period for which the penalty is to remain effective is not indicated which makes the order of penalty totally illegal.
5. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and heard the arguments of the parties.
As far as the allegation is concerned it stands proved, by enquiry as held by the Inquiry Officer. The non-examination of the witnesses is immaterial because everything was available on the record of the case. The guilt of the appellant in the circumstances, was established.
6. Coming to the legal objection it has been held by the Supreme Court itself that non-mention of the specific penalty in the show-cause notice does not make the notice void and that it is sufficient to mention the words "major penalty". The Corrigendum issued in this respect was not at all necessary and in any case the issuance of corrigendum has made up the deficiency even if there was any. As regards penalty imposed upon the appellant it has been argued by the appellant's counsel that under Rule 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973, only one increment can be withheld because that rule mentions "increment" and not "increments". It was also argued that it has not been specified in the penalty order if penalty shall postpone the future increments.
6-A. As far as the first objection is concerned there is no substance therein. Under the General Clauses Act, singular includes plural. The word "increment" therefore, shall have to be read as one increment or more increments.
7. As regards the order regarding postponing future increments, that eventuality arises under F.R.
29 only when a person is reduced to a lower grade, post or to a lower stage in the time scale. The requirement of ordering whether the future increments shall be postponed or not, is not attracted in this case.
8. We find that the penalty imposed on the appellant is rather lenient. Therefore, we find no substance in this appeal which is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
9. Parties be informed.