' FAKHAR HAYAT (MEMBER-V).--- Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Ex-Chowkidar working in the office of Excise and Taxation Officer, Multan was dismissed from service vide order, dated 8- 5-2006 on account of multifarious allegations. He preferred a departmental appeal which was rejected by the respondent No,1 vide order, dated 26-6-2006. The appellant has contended that whole disciplinary proceedings were conducted against law and, therefore, the impugned orders were not sustainable.
2. The respondents in their parawise comments maintained that the charges levelled against the appellant were based on facts and supported by evidence and that penalty imposed by the respondent No,2 was quite legal and in accordance with law. It was also contended that the appeal of the appellant was baked by time.
3. Arguments advanced on behalf of the parties have been considered and record gone through.
4. In the amended application for condonation of delay I appellant has contended that he received the copy of the impugned order on 31-10-2006. In corresponding para. To the reply to the said application it was simply stated that the order of the respondent No,1 was conveyed to the appellant in time. There is no denial as to actual date of receipt by the appellant on 31-10-2006 nor the departmental representatives could show any such material from the record to the contrary.
5. The appellant was charge-sheeted on multifarious allegations which were replied. There is nothing on record to suggest that any Inquiry Officer was appointed or a regular inquiry was held.
But considering the written reply the impugned order of dismissal from service was passed. Proper procedure under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 was not followed. Since there were controversies of fact in the charge-sheet and reply to it, therefore, it was incumbent upon the authority to appoint an Inquiry Officer and get a regular inquiry held whereafter a show-cause notice should have been issued and the proper order passed. Since this has not been done, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
6. For what has been discussed above, the appeal of the appellant is accepted, impugned orders are set aside and as consequence, the appellant shall be reinstated into service. The departmental proceedings against the appellant shall be deemed to be still pending. The Authority shall pass an order for holding a regular inquiry and appoint an Inquiry Officer who will record evidence and afford an opportunity of cross-examinations on the witnesses to the appellant and adduce his own evidence if the appellant so desires. On submission of inquiry report disciplinary proceedings should be concluded wherein nature of period intervening between the dismissal and reinstatement of the appellant shall be determined by the Authority.