' Appellant was recruited as Naib Qasid. He was served with show-cause notice on the charges on wilful absence from duty, negligence in the discharge of duties and undesirable and irresponsible behaviour. He was removed from service w,e,f, 5-12-1990 vide order of the respondent No, 3, dated 20-3-1991.
2. The appellant filed departmental appeal against the order of the respondent No,
3. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 19-10-1991 set aside the order dated 20-3-1991 holding that the said order is defective to the extent that the prescribed procedure was not adopted. Further the penalty of reduction to an initial stage of the time scale was imposed in the same order.
3. The appellant filed a revision petition against the order of the respondent No 2 which was also turned down by the respondent No, 1 vide order dated 29-12-1994. The appellant has challenged the order dated 19-10-1991 through this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the order of the respondent No, 2, dated 19-10-1991 is liable to set aside because the Appellate Authority admitted that the order of the respondent No, 2 regarding punishment of removal from service of the appellant was defective.
Once having declared the order as defective and setting aside the same another penalty cannot be imposed without following the prescribed procedures. He also contended that the Appellate Authority was not competent to impose penalty of reduction in time scale without completing the requirements of rules and serving charge-sheet/show-cause notice. Accordingly, the said order is without lawful authority and needs to be set aside.
5. The order of the respondent No, 2, dated 19-10-1991 clearly provides that order of removal from service of the appellant dated 20-3-1991 passed by respondent No, 3 was defective and, therefore, set aside. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant carries weight that the under said order, passed by respondent No, 2, appellant could not have been imposed another penalty.
Since the respondent No, 3 had not proceeded in accordance with the prescribed procedure and it was conceded by the respondent No, 2 while passing order dated 19-10-1991, the appellant was not liable to any other punishment. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and order dated 19-10-1991, with respect to the imposition of penalty of "reduction to an initial stage of the time scale" is hereby set aside.