2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

FAKHAR HAYAT (MEMBER-V).

The appellant, constable in the Punjab Police, was proceeded against departmentally and vide order, dated 19-10-2005 passed by SSP/Battalion Commander, Battalion No.1, PC, Abbas Lines, Lahore was dismissed from service. His period of absence was treated as without pay. He made a representation to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, respondent No.1 who dismissed his appeal as appellate authority by holding that there was no reason to interfere with the order of punishing authority.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that a summary procedure was adopted which was not warranted by law; that at the most 30 days absence was made out whereas leave upto 90 days was at the credit of the appellant and that the impugned orders were passed arbitrarily and without considering the fact that the mother of appellant had been seriously ill.

3. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and argued that the appellant remained absent for 253 days in a span of 10 months and that he did not bother to give reply to show-cause notices issued earlier whereafter a final show-cause notice was issued.

4. Arguments have been considered and record' gone through.

5. Admittedly no formal inquiry was conducted in this case. Of course, the competent authority may decide to dispense with the inquiry in appropriate cases under section 5(5) of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The competent authority may dispense with the inquiry, if it is in possession of sufficient documentary evidence against the accused or for reasons to be recorded in writing, it is satisfied that there is no need of holding an inquiry. The appellant controverted his absence to the extent of 253 days involving question of fact which needs to be inquired as quantum of punishment, if any, could be different. From the available record, it is not evident that the competent authority before proceeding to issue the show-cause notice to the appellant recorded reasons for dispensing with a formal inquiry. This is vitiative of the whole proceedings. Even otherwise, it is appropriate that in matters entailing major penalty, a formal inquiry should have been conducted. On this score, de novo proceedings are to be taken against the appellant. The competent authority, if so desires, should record reasons for dispensing with the inquiry and then to proceed further. In case, the formal inquiry is to be initiated then the appellant should be charge-sheeted.

6. For what has been discussed above, the appeal of the appellant is accepted, the impugned orders dated 19-10-2005 and 11-5-2006 passed by the respondents are set aside, the appellant stands reinstated in service and the case is remanded to the competent authority viz. respondent No.2 for proceeding afresh in accordance with law as narrated in the preceding paragraph and to pass a fresh order. The nature of the intervening period shall be determined by the competent authority while passing a final order as a result of the de novo proceedings.

7. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./10/PST Appeal accepted.