' K.B. ABID (MEMBER-II).--- Facts in brief are that appellant Shahid Naeem, Ex-Excise and Taxation Officer was served show-cause notice containing the following charges:--
(i) That on 25-9-2001 at 2-00 p.m. While checking Motor Vehicles on road near Jalandhir Cotton Factory, Qaboola Road, Arifwala, appellant stopped the Vehicle LPT-8411 and the driver of the said vehicle produced a valid token but you did not accept and instead maltreated and man-handled the wagon driver and also abused and slapped him on the road and insisted that token was wrong.
(ii) That appellant abducted Muhammad Sharif the father of Ghulam Rasool resident of Mohallah Pir Kot, Pakpattan on 1-3-2002 and sent him to lock-up on 9-3-2002. Appellant took him away from lock-up on 20-3-2002, kept him in his illegal confinement upto 25-3-2002 and released on 26-3- 2002. Neither he was the contractor/property owner nor the defaulter of Agriculture tax of Mst. Riaz Begum. This charge was also brought against appellant that appellant picked Rs,3,600 from his pocket. He was an old man of 82 years whom appellant disgraced.
(iii) That appellant did not enjoy good reputation and there are always complaints against appellant on malpractices and corruption.
2. The appellant in the first instance had not submitted reply to show-cause notice. However, he had submitted the reply on 3-4-2003. In reply to allegation No,1, the appellant claimed that on 25- 9-2001, the registration and token No, of Vehicle No,LPT-8411 was checked and it was found that official seal of Motor Registering Authority, Bahawalnagar was affixed but seal did not bear the signatures of any M.R.A. Nor any initial were there. The driver of the said vehicle had abused the entire staff of Excise and Taxation Department and he had threatened to teach lesson. The appellant claimed that he had neither maltreated the driver and nor mishandled him. The payment of token tax was checked by Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer and had left him to get the signatures of M.R.A. On relevant part of official seal of token tax. Had the then Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer kept the registration book for the verification of payment of token tax from M.R.A. Bahawalnagar himself, driver would not have made a complaint against him. The driver of vehicle had filed a complaint against appellant to Director-General Excise and Taxation Punjab, Lahore. It was claimed by the appellant that matter was also probed by AETO Arifwala wherein the appellant was exonerated from this charge. The appellant pleaded himself to be innocent in respect of other charges. The competent authority had afforded the appellant opportunity for personal hearing on 14-4-2003, 18-4-2003, 2-5-2003, 12-5-2003, 22-5-2003, 14-10-2003 and 17-4- 2004. As mentioned in the penalty orders, the appellant had started sending medical certificates from 11-4-2003. The Medical Superintendent Civil Hospital Pakpattan was asked to constitute Medical Board to examine the appellant. The appellant had not appeared before the Medical Superintendent for medical examination. By taking in view these facts, the competent authority concluded that the appellant is not interested in service. The penalty of dismissal from service was awarded to appellant vide order, dated 24-5-2004. The departmental representation of the appellant was rejected on 25-11-2005 on the grounds that the said representation was filed on 16- 8-2004 against the order dated 24-5-2004. The main reason for rejection of the departmental representation was time-barred factor because it was not filed within the prescribed limitation period of 15 days.
3. Aggrieved by the orders of departmental authorities, the service appeal has been filed in PST under section 4 of PST Act, 1974.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the competent authority who was not authorized to issue such show-cause notice as no authorization was issued in his favour under section 2(aa) of RSO-2000. The penalty orders have been passed through shorter procedure of show-cause notice. The Inquiry Officer was not appointed to conduct the probe through regular inquiry. The penalty has been imposed without consideration of reply of the appellant and discussing the merits of the case.
5. Respondents have opposed the arguments of the counsel and stated that the appellant was afforded opportunity of personal hearing for several occasions but he deliberately avoided to appear before Authority and started sending medical certificates. As concluded by respondent No,2 the Authority is competent to dispense with inquiry. The show-cause notice was served to him after observing all codal formalities. Respondent No,1 in reply to the service appeal has mainly relied on the grounds that the appellant had filed the representation beyond mandatory period of 15 days. It has also been objected by respondent No,1 that the final order was passed by Director- General Excise and Taxation Officer, Punjab, Lahore on 25-11-2005 whereas the service appeal has been filed on 4-2-2006. The appeal is time-barred and is not maintainable.
6. Arguments of the counsel heard, record perused. During the Tribunal proceedings, the record pertaining to issuance of penalty orders by the competent authority has been examined. The attendance register of the Excise and Taxation Officer, Pakpattan indicates that the appellant had marked his presence uptil 15-7-2004. There is no entry on the attendance register that the appellant on 24-5-2004 was dismissed from service. The D.R. Present in the Tribunal proceedings was asked about the delivery of dismissal orders to the appellant. The D.R. Has confirmed that the penalty orders were dispatched at the official address of Excise and Taxation Officer, Pakpattan but no date of delivery by the appellant has been confirmed by the D.R. From this it cannot be assessed that on which date the appellant had received the penalty orders. In this way, the date of receipt of penalty orders mentioned by the appellant will be considered and that date was 7-8- 2004 (relieved through the then ETO Pakpattan). The respondent No,1 in comments to the appeal has admitted that representation of appellant was received on 16-8-2004. In this way, departmental representation before the Director-General Excise and Taxation was within the limitation period. The appellant has also mentioned that the appeal rejection order of the District Excise and Taxation Officer was received to him on 20-12-2005. The respondents have not furnished any proof about the dispatch and receipt of the order dated 25-11-2005 by appellant on some specific date. The communication of the appellate order should have been through registered service. The objection of the respondents about time-barred appeal before the PST is not supported with the facts and details. The date of receipt of order i,e, 20-12-2005 is considered as valid date of communication. The service appeal in PST was filed on 18-1-2006.
7. The competent authority while issuing the penalty orders had not discussed the merits of the case. Though dates of personal hearing have been mentioned in penalty orders yet no proof is given about service of these notices. In case respondent No,2 had authentic proof about service of personal hearing notice, then he should have opted ex parte proceedings and passed orders by taking in view merits and material evidences on record. The respondent No,2 has not passed the orders by taking into consideration reply of appellant and departmental evidence. The ex parte orders. Of Authority is totally against provision of RSO-2000. The entire process is one sided and appellant was not afforded the reasonable opportunity of defence. Such orders without defence of the appellant are unlawful. Both the orders of departmental authorities are set aside. The appellant is reinstated into service. Regular inquiry is ordered. Intervening period would be decided after outcome of the inquiry. With these orders, the appeal is disposed of.