' CH. MUHAMMAD ZAFAR IQBAL (MEMBER).--- Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Muhammad Rafique was departmentally proceeded through issuance of show-cause notice on the charge of failing to register a case with a delay of one month and not arresting the accused wilfully and did not seek the remand for police custody in a bailable case under sections 354/451, P.P.C. In F.I.R. No,100 of 2003, Police Station Mitha Tiwana, District Khushab. He was issued a Show- cause Notice No,494/PA dated 30-9-2003.
2. The regular inquiry was not dispensed away with as was required under the statutory provisions of section 5(4) of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and was inflicted major penalty of reduction in pay by one stage vide order, dated 17-10-2003.
3. Aggrieved by it the appellant assailed the order before the Appellate Authority, which was decided by the respondent No,1 on 14-10-2004, while deciding the case he enhanced the punishment without showing cause to the appellant, which was a mandatory step to be taken before the enhancement of the punishment by the Appellate Authority which has not been done as has been contemplated in section 9-A of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000. The Appellate Authority not only maintained the previous penalty but also added another punishment of withholding of promotion for three years and these two punishments cannot be awarded in an intertwined shape for one charge, this is another illegality committed by the Appellate Authority.
4. Aggrieved by this the present appeal was filed. After the admission of regular hearing, comments of the respondents were sought.
5. Arguments heard. There are certain legal glitches, which are clearly evident in the departmental prosecution i,e, the enhancement of punishment without issuing the show-cause notice by the Appellate Authority, a clear cut violation of statutory provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Non-holding of a regular hearing while the authorities entitled to award a major penalty is also a lacuna which renders the prosecution as fractured one. The irony is that none of the Appellate Authority bothers to know that the case on the basis of which the appellant has been charged were bailable offences and the A.S.P., who was new, entrant in service could not understand the difference between the bailable and non-bailable offence and magnified the incident into horrendous one.
6. The rumbling through the competent authority and the Appellate Authority without caring for the legal mandates pronounced in the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 renders the whole prosecution process unsustainable, violative of vested right of being prosecuted fairly and squarely of the appellant. This hasty and haphazard handling of the departments prosecution impregnated material legal lacuna does leave me of no option but to accept the appeal and set aside the punishment orders from the date they were awarded to him. No order as to costs. Consigned to record room.