2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD AFZAL (MEMBER-I).

The appeal challenges the order, dated 4-12-2002 vide which the appellant was awarded the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments on the allegation of inefficiency as he had failed to arrest the P.O's./C.A.'s during the special campaign in June, 2002. After having exhausted departmental remedy, present appeal has been filed in this Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant maintains that there was no specific and concrete allegation against the appellant regarding inefficiency. It is further stated that appellant was proceeded against on report of S.H.O. who had his own likes and dislikes and for this reason a stereotyped show-cause notice was served upon him whereas the allegations were just baseless. It is also pointed out that appellant had given reply to the show-cause notice, but his explanation was not considered and in a mechanical manner punishment was awarded to the appellant. It is next stated that no reasons were given for dispensing with inquiry and that punishment was awarded to the appellant for the sake of punishment without granting personal hearing to the appellant which was the minimum requirement of law governing disciplinary proceedings.

3. Appeal is opposed by the respondents. It is pointed out that appellant was awarded the punishment on account of his inefficiency as he had failed to meet the target for arrest of absconding criminals during special campaign. It is also pointed out that appellant was given personal hearing but his explanation was not found satisfactory and for this reason he was awarded punishment in accordance with law and by the competent authority.

4. I have considered contentions from both sides and also perused the relevant record. I agree with the appellant that impugned orders were passed in stereotyped manner imposing upon the appellant, penalty of stoppage of two increments. There is no mention in the impugned orders that the appellant was given any personal hearing or his explanation was considered and found not satisfactory and if found not satisfactory, for what reasons. The stereotyped nature of proceedings conducted against the appellant, persuades me to believe version of the appellant that he was not given any personal hearing and he was awarded punishment for the sake of punishment. The appellant could be punished only if he had been given any target to arrest certain member of proclaimed criminals and if it was proved, that it was possible for the appellant to arrest those offenders but he deliberately did not do so. This could only be determined through regular inquiry and not at the whims of the authority. Therefore, considering facts of the case, appeal is accepted and case is remanded to the concerned authority for fresh proceedings including regular inquiry strictly in accordance with law. Resultantly, the impugned orders shall stand set aside. H.B.T./15/PST Appeal accepted.