2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

RAI IJAZ ALI ZAIGHAM (MEMBER-VI).

The appellant Mr. Dilber Hussain has assailed Order No.2467/PS' dated 11-8-2009 of the authority/CPO Faisalabad whereby penalty of reduction to lower post i.e. Inspector to S.-I. for a period of three years was imposed upon him under PEEDA Act, 2006. He filed departmental appeal dated 26-8-2009 and after lapse of mandatory period he filed service appeal. During the pendency of service appeal the appellate authority converted penalty of "reduction to lower post i.e. from the rank of Inspector to Sub-Inspector for a period of three years" into withholding of increments for two years vide Order No.136-39 dated 9-1-2010 and he filed amended appeal. It has been stated in the appeal that the appellant was appointed as A.S.-I. in 1988. He was promoted as Inspector in the year 2003 on account of his good performance. During the period October, 2007 to August, 2009 he was issued 16 show-cause notices dated 8-10-2007, 5-11-2007, 26-1-2008,21-1-2008, 19-5-2008, 27-6-2008, 19-8-2008, 21-8-2008, 6-10-2008; 29-10-2008, 29-12-2008, 30-1-2009, 28-3-2009, 21-5-2009,14-7-2009 and 5-8-2009 on different charges, He replied to these show-cause notices explaining his position. The authority heard him in person on 11-8-2009. Finding his replies and explanation tendered during personal hearing as lame excuses on one pretext or the other he imposed penalty of reduction to lower post i.e. from Inspector to S.-I. for a period of three years. He filed departmental appeal dated 26-8-2009, which was partially accepted and penalty of "reduction to lower post i.e. from the rank of Inspector to Sub-Inspector for a period of three years" was converted into withholding of increments for two years vide Order No. 136-39 dated 9-1-2010, hence the amended appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that these 16 show-cause notices were issued on different dates on different allegations. He replied to these show-cause notices and rebutted allegations with facts and figures. For instance in reply to show-cause notice dated 21-8-2008 regarding pendency of challans and investigations he had submitted that as incharge investigation staff at' Police Station, Sargodha Road he arrested 99 P.Os., 88 Court absconders and 9 target offenders. This reflects his good performance which was not considered. Similarly in response to other show-cause notices he submitted his contentions and rebutted the allegations but despite that no inquiry was held which is mandatory for awarding major penalty. The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in so many cases has held that where allegations have been controverted and require production of evidence to prove these, regular inquiry is a must before taking punitive action against the accused. But in this case it was ignored and major penalty on the basis of summary proceedings was imposed. He was not afforded opportunity of defence which amounts to denial of natural justice. In view of legal infirmities in the impugned orders these may be set aside. 2-A The learned D.D.A. assisted by the D.R. pointed out that 16 show-cause notices could have been converted into 16 separate inquiries and he could have been penalized separately in the light of guilt ascertained. This goes in his favour that all these show-cause notices were decided by one order. The replies submitted by the appellant in response to show-cause notices and explanation tendered during personal hearing were unsatisfactory. He was found inefficient in investigating criminal cases and arrest of offenders. The authority rightly dispensed withholding of regular inquiry because all the charges were based on record. The impugned orders may be upheld.

3. Arguments heard, parawise comments and record perused. It has been found that there were material controversies but these were not resolved by holding a regular inquiry according to the procedure prescribed under PEEDA Act, 2006. In cases where imposition of major penalty is contemplated, holding of regular inquiry is a must, as laid down by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a number of case laws but it was not done in this case. No cogent reasons have been given in the show-cause notices for dispensing with holding of regular inquiry. The appellant has been punished without procuring adequate evidence to prove inefficiency and misconduct.

4. In view of legal infirmities in the impugned orders of authority imposing major penalty of reduction in rank from Inspector to S.-I. for a period of three years and order of appellate authority modifying it into withholding of increments for two years are set aside, H.B.T./5/PST Appeal allowed.