' Muhammad Afzal Khan, was an Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, on 26-2-1992 when he was served with the charge-sheet of even date containing seven counts mostly relating to his property allegedly acquired by him beyond his known means. Mr. Ameer Khan, Excise and Taxation Officer was appointed as Inquiry Officer. In his reply to the charge-sheet refuted the charges but the Inquiry Officer submitted a report against him on 26-8-1992. The Authorised Officer recommended imposition of a major penalty upon him and acting thereupon, the Authority by its orders dated 10- 6-1993 reduced him by 2 steps in his time scale. His departmental appeal failed and hence he brought the instant appeal.
2. Mr. Ghani, Advocate for the appellant pointed out at the outset that the Authorised Officer failed to give him an opportunity of hearing against his recommendation for imposing major penalty upon him besides his failure to furnish him a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer; that in the course of inquiry not a single witness implicated him; that the Authority could not award the penalty of reduction by 2 stages; that a nominee of the Authority giving him hearing exonerated him; and lastly that if the Authority chose to differ with the views of its nominee, it had to afford an independent opportunity of hearing to the appellant and further that the final order was non- speaking inasmuch as no reasons were advanced to punish him.
3. The appeal was contested by refuting all the above points in a flat manner.
4. The record does not bear out if the Authorised Officer issued a notice to the appellant contemplated by rule 7-A of the E&D Rules, 1975. The Authorised Officer, however, averred in his written objections that he had afforded such opportunity to the appellant. There should have been some indication on the record of complying with this requirement. When the appellant denied such opportunity/notice, the respondent's mere affirmation had no value. Likewise there was room to accept that the penalty of reduction could be only to a lower stage of the time scale. It cannot be by stages more than one. This was the view held in 1993 PLC (C.S.) 1443 (Akhtar Ali Monga v. Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others).
5. Next, the impugned order gave no reasons why the appellant should have been punished. It is settled that punishing order should state reasons for awarding the penalty. Counsel rightly relied upon 1991 SCM R 2330 (Aslam Verik v. Secretary, P&D) which insisted upon advancing reasons for punishing a civil servant. Even the Appellate Authority undermined the significance of the requirement. The omissions seemed to be fatal to the order. The most important of them was the failure to give opportunity of hearing to the appellant under rule 7-A. He was seriously prejudiced thereby.
6. As a result of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.