2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

AZAD MUHAMMAD AWAN (MEMBER-II).

This appeal is directed against the orders, dated 18-6-2005 passed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Rawalpindi whereby the appellant was awarded the punishment of removal from service in terms of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 on account of negligence and misconduct, and the order, dated 8-11-2005 passed by the D.I.-G. Prisons, Rawalpindi Region, whereby the punishment of removal from service was converted into compulsory retirement from service and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has come before this Tribunal.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned District Attorney and have gone through the record. The learned counsel for the appellant raised a preliminary objection that as per the policy letter produced by the appellant and admitted by the respondents Superintendent, Central Jail was designated authority for initiating proceedings under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 against the officials in BS-1 to 5 whereas the D.I.-G. was the authority with regard to the officials above the said scale. He further contended that admittedly the appellant was a Head Warder in BS-7 and as such the initiation of disciplinary proceedings was contrary to the policy letter and as such the Superintendent Central Jail was not the authority in case of the appellant to initiate proceedings or to punish. The learned District Attorney has also produced a copy of the Order No.282 of the Inspector-General Prisons, Punjab which also stated that Superintendent, Central Jail was authority with regard to the officials in BS-1 to 5 and the Superintendent District Jail was the authority with regard to officials in BS-1 under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The same was also reiterated by the letter, dated 3-5-2006, copy produced by the learned District Attorney. The learned District Attorney has not been able to oppose the contention that the Superintendent Central Jail was not the competent authority to initiate the proceedings against the appellant who was Head Warder or to punish him.

3. As a result of above discussion without going to the merits of the case the appeal is allowed. The orders of the Superintendent, Central Jail and the D.I.-G. Prisons, dated 18-6-2005 and 8-11-2005 are set aside. The appellant is reinstated in service. The case is remanded to the authority to hold de novo inquiry in terms of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The date of intervening period shall depend upon the outcome of the de novo inquiry. H.B.T./26/PST???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.