' MUHAMMAD AFZAL (MEMBER-I).--- Appeal assails the order, dated 1-10-2003 vide which the appellant was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement on allegation of misconduct/ releasing P.O. At his own after arrest, although no regular inquiry was held. Appellant challenged the orders in departmental appeal, but his appeal was rejected through appellate order, dated 6- 5-2004, hence the present appeal in this Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant states at the very outset that the S.H.O./Inspector Riaz Ahmad was also co-accused in the same case, of disciplinary proceedings, whereas the said co-accused was awarded lesser penalty, but discrimination was made against the appellant and he was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement. It is next stated that impugned orders were ab initio illegal and void since D.P.O. Could not exercise the powers as authority as the appellant happened to be co-, accused along with the Inspector and in accordance with law only, the authority hi the case of senior co-accused could pass orders in the case of the appellant as well.
3. Appeal is opposed by the respondents on the grounds that orders were passed in accordance with law.
4. I have considered contentions from both parties. I agree with learned counsel that in accordance with law only D.I.-G. Could act as the authority in the case of the appellant as well since D.I.-G. Was the authority in the case of co-accused/S.H.O. The orders passed by D.P.O./S.P.
Khanewal, therefore, could not sustain being not in accordance with law. Appeal is accordingly accepted and impugned/ original orders passed by incompetent authority are set aside. Case is remanded to the concerned authority/D.I.-G. To take a fresh and independent decision while at the sometime considering the implications of his decision in the case of co-accused/S.H.O. Resultantly, appellant shall stand reinstated and the period intervening shall be treated as leave of the kind due.
2007. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.