1. ABDUL WALT MAKHDOOM (Member).-Appellant who was serving as a Primary School Teacher under the respondents was suspended on 16-4-1974 and was served with a charge-sheet by respondent No. 1 who was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry against the appellant.
2. This was protested to by the appellant through an applications to respondent No.3 but it was not intimated to him as to what happened to that application of his. After the enquiry respondent No. l himself passed an order dated 5-7-1974 to the effect that by way of penalty two increments of his be stopped without cumulative effect. The matter however, did not rest there as without holding any further proceedings in the matter, the very same respondent passed another order on 17-9- 1974 ordering the removal of the appellant from service. The appellant had represented against these orders but was not informed as to effect to these representations. Hence this appeal had been filed before us on 16-9-1975. The respondent's case is that the order of removal of the appellant had become expedient in view of Government Directive No. SO (N)-15 (36-74) dated 26- 8-1974.
3. We have heard the appellant's advocate and I the learned Assistant Advocate-General. It is an admitted fact that there was only one show-cause notice given to the appellant doted 18-4-1974 on which he had been proceeded i n the Enquiry and punished through order dated 5-7-1974, but it appears that another order was passed in the same enquiry by the very same officer i. e. respondent No. 3, though no fresh show-cause notice A for modifying the order passed on 5-7-1974 was given to the appellant. In the order of 17-9-1974 it was mentioned that the earlier order of July 19741 was being modified through that order (dated 17-9-1974). In the order itself there is nothing to show the modification had become necessary or whether the fresh order was being passed on directions from above. It is only at the stage of written statement that it has been pleaded that the second order had been expedient in view of Government Directive No. SO (N)-15 (36/74) dated 26- 8-1974 but we do not find any such reference in the order of 17-9-1974. Moreover when the incumbent had already been punished the same authority cannot proceed to punish him on the very same charge-sheet and enquiry and without a fresh show-cause notice. The order of 26-8- 1974 referred to in para 6 of the written statement has not been brought on record but even if we were to taken notice of such directions then also the appellant was certainly entitled to fresh show- cause ,notice' for imposition of such a major penalty in place of the minor one. Hence the order of 17-9-1974 could not be sustained and is set aside. The other order dated 5-7-1974 will however stand. The result is that this appeal is allowed with no order as to costs only with reference to the order of 17-9-1974, which is being set aside.