' This appeal has been submitted under section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
2. Brief facts are that the appellant along with 3 other police officials proceeded to the Court of Magistrate Arifwala on 13-8-2002 obtaining remand of 4 accused persons. After obtaining the remand his way back to police station, the appellant and other police officials found a person lying senseless on road side who was removed to the hospital and got him admitted in the Civil Hospital, Arifwala who subsequently expired. Rao Muhammad Younas, brother of the deceased Rao Muhammad Anwar was informed that the death of his brother was caused due to torture by appellant and other police officials. Consequently, he lodged the F.I.R. No.257 of 2002, dated 13-8- 2002 at Police Station Arifwala against the appellant and other police officials. The appellant was arrested and was sent to Jail. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The appellant due to confinement in jail and non-availability of any facilities, could not submit his reply and ultimately he was dismissed from service vide order dated 9-9-2002. The appellant was acquitted from the charge of murder on 14-10-2002. After his acquittal from the Court of competent jurisdiction, he came to know that he was dismissed from service. Thereafter, the appellant preferred the departmental appeal to Respondent No.2 which was rejected vide order dated 7-7-2002, Hence, the present service appeal.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that no regular inquiry was conducted and he was not afforded the opportunity to defend his case because he was in the judicial lock-up.
4. Conversely, the learned District Attorney assisted by the Inspector Legal supported the impugned order. The respondents in their comments have submitted that the appellant was proceeded against departmentally and the show-cause notice was issued and served upon him on 20-8- 2002 while he was confined in Central Jail, Sahiwal but he failed to submit written reply within the stipulated period and ultimately, the impugned order was passed. The respondents have admitted that the appellant was acquitted from the charge of murder.
5. Arguments heard and record perused. The appellant while employed as Head Constable in the Punjab Police was issued a show-cause notice on the allegations that he while posted at Police Station Ahmad Yar, the complainant Rao Muhammad Youns lodged the F.I.R. No.257 of 2002, dated 13-8-2002 under sections 302/148/149 P.P.C. Wherein the allegations was levelled against the appellant and other police officials that his brother Rao Muhammad Anwar was tortured to death.
The appellant could not submit the reply to the show-cause notice because .He was confined into jail and after trial of the case, he was acquitted from the charge, of murder. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the sole basis for the charge was knocked out by the acquittal of the appellant. It is the admitted position between the parties that no regular inquiry was conducted in the matter and naturally, no. Material could be collected and no evidence could be examined independently to prove the charge of murder. There is no denial of the fact that if the departmental authority had held the appellant guilty as a result of regular inquiry, having been conducted by them, then the appellant could not say that he has been exonerated by the Criminal Court. The departmental authority was not competent to discharge/remove him from service.
Since, the regular inquiry was not conducted, which was necessary before awarding the major penalty to the appellant, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the departmental authority are not sustainable under the law and the same are hereby set aside.
6. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed, impugned orders passed by the departmental authority are set aside and the case is remanded to the departmental authority for holding the regular inquiry regarding the allegations levelled against the appellant. The appellant shall be reinstated in service and the intervening period, the appellant remained out of service shall be treated as Extraordinary Leave without pay. #EndJudgment