' Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 21-7-2004 passed by Secretary Excise and Taxation Department/competent authority placing the appellant under suspension pending an inquiry.
Departmental representation of the appellant addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, having remained unattended till the expiry of statutory period, recourse has been made to this Tribunal for the redressal of his grievances.
2. Learned District Attorney at the very outset raised an objection that suspension being not a final order no appeal is competent unless some law has been transgressed. Learned counsel on the other hand stated that the reading of the charge-sheet would show that a witch hunt has commenced against the appellant as the charges would itself disclose being without substance not appealable to any reasonable and prudent mind.
3. I have gone through the record and apart from other arguments the suspension order was passed on 21-7-2004 and it seems that nothing material has taken place as yet. The stance adopted by the competent authority in his comments that under section 4 of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000, he has powers to continue the suspension without any check is an extremely misconceived notion. Suspension in pending inquiry and an elaborate procedure has been given for the completion of inquiry within a definite period. Learned District Attorney has come to the rescue of making a candid statement that the inquiry would be completed till 15th January, 2005 positively and the date of hearing now given i.e. 20-1-2005 will be truncated and brought to 10-12-2004. Appellant has assumed the charge of Director, Excise and Taxation, Multan, service would therefore be affected at the aforesaid address. In case the appellant evades service or refuses to attend the inquiry proceedings after having answered the summons, the Inquiry Officer's powers are not stifled to feel helpless, rather apart from adopting coercive measures he can proceed ex parte. The department on its own end should not procrastinate the process till date of retirement of the appellant, as feared by him. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant stated that since January, 2004 appellant has not been paid his salary. I am certain that Secretary Excise and Taxation Department would leave no stone unturned to disburse the salary of the appellant by using his good offices. With these observations, learned counsel for the appellant does not want to press the appeal any further for the present and seeks its withdrawal. Appeal is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid observations.