' Zafar Iqbal, former Constable No.2454 in the Police Department has come in appeal bringing in challenge order dated 2-11-2004 passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala, who rejected his appeal and maintained the order dated 7-10-2003 by the Superintendent of Police, City Division, Gujranwala imposing penalty of dismissal from service while proceedings under the provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000.
2. Appellant while serving as Constable with Rescue-15, Gujranwala was served with the following show-cause notice:-- "You being a member of disciplined force involved in criminal cases F.I.R. Nos.596 and 597, dated 25-9-2003 under section 392, P.P.C. Police Station Sabzi Mandi, Gujranwala. You have committed gross misconduct. Hence, this show-cause notice is being issued to you for major penalty."
' Appellant was served with the notice on 30-9-2003, when, it seems, he was apprehended by the Police in the criminal case registered vide F.I.R. Nos. 596 and 597 on 25-9-2003 under section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station, Sabzi Mandi, Gujranwala. Thereafter, the appellant was transferred to judicial lock-up. The Authority proceeded ex parte with the following observations:-- "At this stage when they have been sent to judicial lock-up, departmental proceedings are hereby finalized and all of them are dismissed from service with immediate effect by ex parte decision under R.S.O.
2000."
' Appellant filed an appeal to the Appellate Authority, which was declined on 2-11-2004.
3. Learned counsel has contended that the appellant was in jail when the dismissal order was passed by the Superintendent of Police, City Division, Gujranwala on 7-10-2003, and admittedly, no notice was sent to him even during his incarceration in the jail as the reproduced portion of the order of the Authority, in the preceding paragraph of judgment clearly indicate that the proceedings were one-sided, as such, he has been condemned unheard by the imposition of the harshest penalty of dismissal from service. It was next contended that the charges being extremely serious in nature on factual plinth involving controversial questions could only have been resolved through a regular inquiry, which admittedly, was not resorted to, causing irreparable loss to the appellant. Lastly, it was submitted that the appellant along with others were ultimately acquitted by a competent Court of law vide judgment dated 23-2-2004, thus leaving no trace of any act of misfeasance committed by the appellant to enable the Authority to take a drastic step of depriving him of his livelihood by dismissing him from service. Learned District Attorney on the other hand could not controvert the forceful arguments of the counsel for the appellant.
4. I have heard the respective counsel at length and also perused the record.
5. Appellant was arrested in the F.I.R. Nos.596 and 597 under section 392 of P.P.C., registered with Police Station, Sabzi Mandi, Gujranwala, in which he along with others were arraigned as accused persons. A show-cause notice was definitely sent to the appellant on 27-9-2003, which was served upon him while he was in the custody of the Police, therefore could not respond with a closed mind, as a person in custody cannot be expected to work up his faculties to the extent of replying to a serious charge with a sagacious mind. Thereafter, as the impugned order would itself show that the Authority proceeded to dismiss the appellant by taking ex parte action on the ground that since the appellant was in judicial lock-up, the proceedings are finalized by passing a dismissal order. This is in total and complete negation of the principles of natural justice. To add fuel to fire, the Appellate Authority without addressing himself to the arguments raised by the appellant that he was condomned unheard, went on to hold that since the appellant had not turned up, therefore his appeal merited dismissal. Even in the absence of the appellant, the grounds of appeal were before the Appellate Authority, who could have attended to a formidable objection taken by the appellant that without extending him the right of hearing, major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed. On the other hand, appellant was acquitted in the criminal charge brought through F.I.R. No.597/2003 registered with Police Station, Sabzi Mandi, Gujranwala under section 392 of the P.P.C. By the order of Court dated 23-2-2004, Mumtaz Ahmad and Tahir Mahmood, the other two Constables have been reinstated in service vide judgment of this Tribunal delivered on 23-10-2004 in Appeals 1398 and 1399 of 2004. There is no reason to treat the appellant differentially.
6. The sum and substance of the discussion leads me to the conclusion that the proceedings drawn against the appellant were not only in negation of justice, but also suffered from a huge irregularity by failing to hold a regular inquiry. Appeal is accepted, order dated 21-1-2004 passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gurjanwala Range along with the order dated 7-10-2003 passed by the Superintendent of Police, City Division, Gujranwala are set aside. Appellant shall be reinstated in service by treating the intervening period between dismissal from service and reinstatements as leave of the kind due.