1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The relevant facts for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant was serving as Sub‑Inspector and posted at P.S. Kamalia when Respondent No.l imposed minor penalty of Censure vide order dated 29‑3‑1986. The Respondent No.l endorsed the copy of the order to Respondent No.2, who proceeded to serve the appellant with a show‑cause notice as to why he should not be awarded one of the major penalties instead of minor penalty of Censure. The appellant submitted reply thereto and Respondent No.2, after considering the merits of the case, imposed the following punishments:‑

1. Reduction in pay by one stage;

2. Removal of his name from List/D.

3. Reversion to substantive rank of Head Constable. vide his order dated 20‑5‑1986. The appellant submitted appeal before Respondent No.3, but as the same was not decided within a period of 90 days therefore, the appellant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal by filing the instant appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The appeal was filed on 21‑9‑1986 and subsequently admitted to hearing on 23‑6‑1987. The respondents have contested the same, filed written objections and prayed for its dismissal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney on behalf of the Respondents and have gone through the record.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised following points in support of the appeal:‑ (1) Firstly, that neither any show‑cause notice was issued to the appellant nor personal hearing was granted by Respondent No.l in Orderly Room in terms of Police Rule 6 and (2) Secondly, since the basic order was bad in law, therefore, the order of Respondent No.2 will also fall to the ground alongwith the same.

4. The learned District Attorney assisted by Inspector Legal maintained that the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice and penalty of censure was imposed by Respondent after hearing the appellant. When I asked to refer to the notice or order, they have nothing to substantiate this contention.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the whole matter. I conclude that the respondent did not proceed in accordance with Rule 6 of the Police (E & D) Rules, 1975, therefore, I have no choice but to strike down the order of Respondent No.l and with this tumbles down the super structure of the order of Respondent No .2. When there is no legal basis to impose minor penalty of Censure, then there is no question of converting the same into major penalty. The respondent No.l has proceeded in most illegal and arbitrary manner while imposing the aforesaid penalty, therefore, the order is bad in 'law.

6. The upshot of the discussion is that the appeal is allowed and impugned orders are set aside. There is no order as to costs. M. Y.H./160/Sr.P??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.