Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR-477 of 1982, decided on 17th January, 1983.

- R. 4 (1) (a) (ii) read with Subsidiary Rules, r. 4 (x)-With holding of increment permanently and not for specified period-Not contrary to rules-Effect of such penalty-Future effect-With-holding of increment for specified period means incumbent would be entitled to receive withheld increment after expiry of specified period.

Sh. Abdul Ghafoor for Appellant.

Syed Intizar Hussain for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 6th December, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 14th July, 1982, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for setting aside the punishment of W. I. P. was dismissed.

2. The appellant was appointed as Sub-Engineer on 10th July, 1956 in Goods Sick Lines, Lahore. He was working as Train Examiner in Chichokimalian when he applied for leave for six months from 8th Decem ber, 1976 to 7th June, 1977, giving his address of out of Pakistan. He applied for extension of leave for six months more on 1st June, 1977. He was given show-cause notice dated 18th August, 1977 to which he replied on 30th August, 1977. According to him, 15e did not receive any informa tion about the case or for holding the enquiry. He gave further application for extension of leave on 5th January, 1978, upto 9th December, 1978. When he reported for duty on returning to Pakistan on 25th November, 1978, he learnt that he had been removed from service on 13th November, 1977. On his appeal the punishment of removal from service was con verted into withholding of increment permanently for three years. He further appealed without any success and, thereafter, serving grievance notice dated 18th June, 1981 brought the grievance petition.

3. The representative of the appellant has not challenged the order of W. I. P. before the learned lower Court on any other ground except this that since the punishment affected his pay and pension holding of enquiry in his presence was necessary. He has also argued that the punish ment of W. I. P. is not given in rules and that the provisions in the subsidiary rules that besides mentioning the period for which the increments are to be withheld, the direction that withholding of increment shall have the effect of postponing the increments in future is not legal.

4. I do not find any force in the argument of the representative that holding of enquiry was necessary inasmuch as the punishment awarded to the appellant affects his future increment and even pension. The punish ment of W. I. P. comes under the heading of minor punishment and not major punishment and even for awarding major penalty for misconduct, it is the discretion of the Railway authorities to decide whether in a parti cular case enquiry should be held or not.

5. This is incorrect that the term W.I. P. is not known to the Efficiency and Disciplinary rules. The subsidiary rule-X of rule 4 provides the awarding of W. I. T. or W. I. P. The meaning of W. I. P. is that the punishment of withholding of increment shall have permanent effect, meaning that the withholding of increment would have future effect, also, whereas the punishment of W. I. T. has no such effect and on the expiry of the period for which the increments are stopped the incumbent is led to receive the withheld increments.

6. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any in the appeal and dismiss it.

A. E.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.