' ZARIN DAD KHATTAK (MEMBER).---This appeal has been filed by Muhammad Younas under section 4 of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal Act, 1974, against the order of respondent No, 1, issued on 21-2- 1992, whereby the appellant has been awarded the penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and the period of his absence has been treated as leave without pay.
2. Brief history of the case as per memo. Of appeal is that the appellant is holding the post of Accounts Clerk in the office of respondent No,
2. He was suspended from service and served with a charge-sheet and statement of allegation under the N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as rules) for his alleged absence from duty, which culminated in the imposition of the penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and treatment of his absence from duty as leave without pay. The appellant has alleged that the inquiry proceedings have been conducted in violation of the mandatory provisions of rules and disregard of the principles of natural justice. He has, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
3. The respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have vide their parawise comments contested the allegations made in the appeal. On the preliminary grounds it has been stated that the appellant has not come to this Tribunal with clean hands and that he has no cause of action. Further that the appeal is time- barred.
4. The appellant alongwith his counsel, representative of respondent department with Government Pleader Mr. Muhammad Ullah Khan present. Arguments heard and record was perused with their assistance.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the charge-sheet and statement of allegations were served on the appellant by the Superintending Engineer (Hqrs) (respondent No, 2) who was not competent to do so. On perusal of the record we find that the Chief Engineer, C&W Department vide his office order of 8-4-1992 had nominated Mr. Ghulam Hussain, Technical Officer to perform the functions of "Authorised Officer" in respect of Government servants from Grades 1 to 15, working in the C & W Department under Rule 2(c) of the Rules. The record shows that the charge-sheet and statement of allegations were issued on 23-5- 1992 by the Superintending Engineer (Hqrs) of the C & W Department (respondent No, 2) who was not competent to issue the same under his signature. The learned Special Government Pleader also agrees with the above proposition.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant also assailed the nature of penalty imposed on the appellant. He stated that the word "with cumulative effect" with regard to the stoppage of increments is misconceived because under the rules, the increment of a civil servant can only be stopped "without cumulative effect". Reliance was placed by him on the following reported cases:-
(1) 1984 PLC (C.S.) 598,
(2) 1984 PLC (C.S.) 769,
(3) 1985 PLC (C.S.) 692,
(4) 1987 PLC (C.S.) 647 and
(5) 1988 PLC (C.S.) 889.
7. It is necessary to examine whether the words "cumulative effect", mentioned in the impugned order are in consonance with the relevant provisions of the rules or otherwise. In this connection reference may be made to sub-clause (ii) of clause (4 of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Rules, under the heading "Minor Penalty" which reads as under:-
(ii) Withholding, for a specific period, promotion or increment, otherwise, then for unfitness for promotion or financial advancement, in accordance with the rules or orders pertaining to service or post.
8. We agree with the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and all the above- reported cases in which it has been held that under the rules, the increment of a civil servant can only be stopped "without cumulative effect" to the extent only when it is treated as a minor penalty.
An Authorised Officer under the rules is debarred from imposing minor penalty with the words "with cumulative effect". However, we would draw attention to sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-rule (i) of Rule 4 of the Rules with the heading "Major penalties", as under:--
(i) Reduction to a lower post, grade or time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale.
9. By using the words "stoppage of annual increments with cumulative effect" the competent Authority intended to impose a major penalty so as to deprive the accused official of the benefit of the increment for all times to come. This is, analogous to the penalty of "reduction to a lower stage in a time scale" which is one of the major penalties prescribed under the rules. Since in this case, the major penalty has been imposed by the Authority under sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules, this Tribunal holds that the punishment imposed on the appellant is covered by the rules.
10. We hold that the charge-sheet and statement of allegations served on the appellant were not issued by the competent Authority. We, therefore, accept this appeal to the extent that we set aside the orders of respondent No, 1 dated 21-12-1992. The respondents are free to initiate fresh proceedings against the appellant if they deem it necessary. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to the record.