' MUHAMMAD ILYAS LODHI (MEMBER).---At the very outset Mr. Saeed Ahmad departmental representative stated at the Bar that respondents have not been able to filed comments for want of nomination of standing counsel and requested for adjournment for filing the same. The case is very simple and we do not think that the Government has to engage a counsel in the matter.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the apppellant had drawn first House Building Advance of Rs,9,000 on 21-5-1977 for construction of a house which was duly repaid by him through his salaries in instalments. It was contended that house could not be constructed and completed due to meagre amount and further that due to heavy flood in Ravi river during the year 1973. The said house was washed away and he was constrained to shift to a rented house to a safest locality. In the year 1988 he again applied for second House Building Advance for construction of a house which was duly sanctioned by the competent Authority and a sum of Rs,74,880 was paid to the appellant in three instalements and the house was pledged in favour of the President of Pakistan as per rules.
He has not committed any illegality so far as second House Building Advance is concerned. An inquiry was conducted into the matter in violation of the rules. Neither any show-cause notice was served upon the appellant before the imposition of penalty nor personal hearing was afforded to him, which is against the spirit of law as laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a number of cases.
3. The departmental representative stated that action against the appellant was taken under the rules, and therefore, the penalty of imposition of stoppage of three annual increments was in accordance with law and there is no legal flaw in the departmental proceedings.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and departmental representative. The learned departmental representative concedes that there is no necessity of filing comments in this case. The departmental representative has failed to show any material which could justify that the second House Building Advance was not permissible under the rules. He has failed to show any rule or authority for which the appellant cannot claim second House Building Advance after lapse of first advance. In fact it was the duty of the examining officer or sanctioning officer and pre-Audit Department not to sanction the loan in his favour if the rules do not permit. It is discrimination that the appellant's colleagues namely Mr. Aslam Butt, Sh. Afzal, Mushtaq Ahmad Cheema and Ch. Noor Muhammad availed of the same facility of second House Building Advance but no proceedings were initiated against them which amounts to criteria of pick and choose whereas every citizen is to be treated equally under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Had the Department taken action against the above-quoted officials, the Department was justified for taking action against the appellant. Since no action was taken against them, the Department could not initiate proceedings and serve charge-sheet upon the appellant. The punishment of stoppage of three annual increments awarded to the appellant is very harsh which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
5. Under the circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned order dated 13-7-1993 and restore the stopped increments for a period of three years. The arrears if any may be paid to the appellant accordingly. .
' Before parting with this judgment, we observe that this would be sufficient that the appellant has gone through the agony of inquiry conducted against him at this age with 33 years service. No order as to costs.