' The appellant is Ex-Warder, District Jail, Shaikhpura, who was served with a show-cause notice containing the allegations that there were some adverse entries in his service record and was not considered fit for further retention in service. The appellant replied to the show-cause notice.
However, he was removed from service through impugned order dated 21-8-2002. The appellant filed representation, which was rejected on 23-4-2003, hence the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant maintains that in the first palce he was never informed about any bad entries in service record and secondly, if there were any adverse entries or any minor punishment awarded to the appellant in the past, the appellant could not be awarded a major punishment of removal from service on the basis of such past minor punishments. It is also maintained by the learned counsel that the appellant has been subjected to double jeopardy and as per law, the appellant could not be punished twice for the same offence. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant that no regular inquiry was held and the committee which examined his case could not become a substitute of Inquiry Officer and the appellant could not be punished on the basis of vague and non-specific allegations.
3. Appeal is opposed by the respondents through their written objections. It is maintained by the respondents that action was taken against the appellant under good governance/Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. It is also mai, tained that record of the appellant was examined and was not found satisfactory, there being many punishments to his discredit. It is also stated by the respondents that action was taken against the appellant in accordance with law.
4. I have considered the contentions from both sides and also perused the relevant record. I find that most of the bad entries in the service record of the appellant are warnings, censures and stoppage of increments mainly because of some incidents of absence from duty. The appellant having already been punished on account of petty offences involving indiscipline, he could not be imposed a major punishment of removal from service through cumulative impact of such past punishments. I also find that allegation of carelessness etc. Were vague and non-specific. I also agree with the learned counsel for appellant that committee which examined the service record of the appellant could not become the substitute of Inquiry Officer. Further, in many recent judgments of this Tribunal (Appeals Nos.2757/02 decided on 11-3-2003, 2955/02, 2956/02 and 2060/021lecided on 2-4-2003), the Punjab Service Tribunal has consistently held that a civil servant could not be punished on the basis of vague and non-specific allegations or any past minor punishments awarded to him. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, impugned orders are found devoid of legal footing and the same are set aside. Appeal is, therefore, accepted. The appellant shall stand reinstated and period intervening shall be treated as leave of the kind due.
Appeal accepted.
2605 PLC (C.S.) 1197 [Punjab Service Tribunal] Before Muhammad Sarfraz Khan Jhawari, Member-II AZHAR AHMAD versus DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, PAKPATTAN and others Appeal No.1649 of 2003, decided on 17th February, 2004.
Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (IV of 2001)--- ----Ss. 3, 5, 6, 7 & 10---Dismissal from service---Appeal---Appellant who was involved in criminal/murder case Was arrested and was sent to jail---Show-cause notice was issued to appellant under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, but appellant, due to confinement in jail and non-availability of any facility, could not submit his reply to show- cause notice and was dismissed from service---Appellant was acquitted from the charge of murder and after his acquittal preferred departmental appeal which having been rejected, appellant had filed service appeal---Validity---No regular inquiry was conducted against appellant and he was not afforded opportunity to defend his case because he was in judicial lock- up---Since, regular inquiry was not conducted which was necessary before awarding major penalty to appellant, impugned orders passed by Departmental Authority were not maintainable-- -Impugned orders were set aside and appellant was ordered to be reinstated in service accordingly. [p. 1198] A & B Asif Nazir Awan for Appellant.
Javed Iqbal Malik, District Attorney for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th February, 2004.
' 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.