' ARSHAD BIN AHMAD (MEMBER-III).--- The appellant Shah Nawaz Sub-Inspector of Police while posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Mela, District Sargodha was served with a show- cause notice under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 on the following allegations:--
(i) "During investigation by the Range Crimes it has revealed that one Khalid Mahmood accused involved in case F.I.R. No,158 dated 13-10-2001 under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Police Station Mela, District Sargodha was produced by his brother Khizar Hayat etc. On 24-10-2001. You kept him in illegal confinement and arrested him on 11-11-2001 after 18 days and subjected him to torture. The writ of habeas corpus filed in this regard was disposed of but the Court ordered for medical examination of the accused. During medical examination 4 injuries were found on his person, confirming the torture. Thereupon the complainant again approached the Court for registration of case and eventually case F.I.R. No,179 dated 4-10-2002 under sections 344/337-K, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Mela against you and other police officials for illegal confinement and torture.
(ii) The above omissions/commissions clearly indicate that you misused of your official position amounting to gross misconduct which had brought bad name for the Police Department.
' The reply of the appellant to the show-cause notice was not found satisfactory and the respondent No,2 imposed the punishment of reduction in pay by two stages upon the appellant vide impugned order, dated 3-11-2004. The appellant filed an appeal before the I.-G.P./ respondent No,1 which was consigned to record being barred by time.
2. The learned counsel contended that, before awarding the penalty of reduction in pay by two stages, which is a major penalty, no regular inquiry was conducted as mandatory under the provisions of section 5 of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. It was also contended that, the impugned orders, dated 3-11-2004 passed by the respondent No,2 were received by the appellant on 19-11-2004. The appeal was filed before the appellate authority/respondent No,1 on 19-11-2004 i,e, within 15 days. It was further argued that, the impugned order, dated 3-11-2004 was incompetent, in that, the competent authority to pass such order was the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha and not the D.I.-G. Sargodha. Further contended that the impugned order, dated 3-11-2004, did not specify the period of penalty which has rendered the order null and void. On merits it was argued that, the charge of illegal confinement false in that, the date of arrest of the accused Khalid Mahmood was 11-11-2001 and not 24-10-2001 as alleged and that, after the accused was arrested and F.I.R. No,158 dated 13-10-2001 under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Police Station Mela was registered against him which is still pending in trial Court. Reliance was placed on 2005 PLC (C.S.) 1555, PLJ 2003 Tr.C. (Services) 182 and PLJ 1994 (Services) 234.
3. Relying on the parawise comments, of the respondents, the learned District Attorney controverted the contentions raised by the learned counsel on the grounds that, the charges against the appellant were proved. He however, could not give a satisfactory reply regarding the contentions raised about the competence of the D.I.-G./respondent No,2 in passing the impugned order and the period of penalty which left unspecified. He also did not controvert the contentions raised on the point of limitation.
4. I have heard the parties and gone through the record. It has been found that, the impugned orders were inherently flawed in that, the orders were passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, who was not the competent authority to pass such orders under Notification No,S.R.O-II-I- 33/94(B), dated 5-11-2001 issued in connection with the competent authorities under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, wherein the Superintendent of Police has been declared the competent authority for Sub-Inspector. In PLJ 2003 Tr.C. (Services) 182 this view has been taken while accepting an appeal on the issue of competence. Thus, the show-cause notice dated 28-9-2004 and the impugned order, dated 3-11-2004 are ipso facto void in law.
Furthermore, no regular inquiry was held although, the matter involved factual controversies. It has been held by the apex Courts and also by this Tribunal, that in cases where factual controversies are involved, regular inquiry should be held. Finally, the fact that, the period of penalty of reduction in pay by two stages imposed upon the appellant was left unspecified in violation of the provisions of Civil Services Rule 4.12 which has rendered the impugned orders ineffective.
5. In view of the aforesaid reasons and legal flaws, without going into the merits of the case and without prejudice to the legal proceedings in the trial Court, appeal is accepted. The impugned orders are set aside. The intervening period is treated as leave of the kind due. Consign to record.