RUSTAM ALI MALIK, CHAIRMAN.- The appellant was serving as Constable in the Police Department and was posted at Police Station, Jahanian, District Khanewal at the relevant time. One after the other, three show-cause notices were issued to him by the District Police Officer, Khanewal copies of which are appended at pages 6, 8 & 10 of this file. The allegations levelled against him in the three show-cause / notices are detailed as following:- Show-Cause Notice No. 506/PA.
(1) He had acquired house on rent in the area P S. City Mian Channu.
(2) Some persons of dubious character were also residing with him.
(3) He was in the habit of taking liquor, and bringing women of bad character at this-place.
(4) On 09.05.2006, at 10:00 a.m. He alongwith Muhammad Shahid, Javed alias Bhidu and some other persons came*there in green car No. 304. He was stopped but he succeeded to flee away while firing.
(5) There was lot of resentment in the area due to his nefarious activities and a delegation of the people of the area met DSP/SDPO, Mian Channu and complained against his behavior.
(6) His act was highly objectionable and he was bringing bad name to the force and the department and as such was liable to stern disciplinary action.
Show-Cause Notice No. 284/PA.
(1) He was habitual absentee and was not taking interest in the discharge of his official duties.
(2) He absented himself from duty without any leave , or permission from the competent authority and his absence was duly recorded vide DDR No. 23, dated 1462.2006.
(3) Since then, he was continuously absent from duty and had not bothered to send any intimation regarding his whereabouts.
(4) He was malingerer type of Police official and was not fit to be retained in service.
Show-Cause Notice No. 536/PA.
(1) He was habitual absentee and was not taking interest in the discharge of his official duties.
(2) He had absented himself from duty without any leave or permission from the competent authority and his absence was duty recorded Vide DDR No. 11, dated 28.03.2006.
(3) Since then, he was continuously absent from - duty and had not bothered to send any intimation regarding his whereabouts.
(4) He was malingerer type of Police official and was not fit to be retained in service.
2. He filed separate replies to alt the show-cause notices. The District Police Officer, Khanewal bring not satisfied with the explanation passed the impugned order on 04.08:2006 and imposed on him the penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved at the said order, he filed a departmental appeal which was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
3. Arguments have- been heard and record perused. At-the time of the arguments, it has been pointed out that the' competent authority did not pass any specific order for dispensing with regular inquiry. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that although the major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed on the appellant, no regular inquiry into the matter was held. He has submitted that although the department can claim to have documentary evidence with regard to the allegations regarding the show-cause notices concerning his absence from duty, it did not have any documentary evidence regarding the show-cause notice No. 506/PA.
Referring to the last sentence at the impugned order dated 04.08.2006 passed by the District Police Officer, Khanewal. He has submitted that the competent authority had itself treated the periods of absence of the appellant as leave without pay and hence it was only Show-Cause Notice No. 506/PA regarding which the appellant could be punished provided a regular inquiry was held to find out as to whether the allegations mentioned in the said show-cause notice were correct or not. He has contended that the allegations contained in the Show Cause Notice No. 506/PA involve factual controversy which require regular inquiry. He has further pointed out that the competent authority did not pass any specific order for dispensing with the, regular inquiry nor had recorded any reasons for doing so and hence the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand the departmental representative has resisted the appeal and in this respect he has referred to the contents of the parawise comments submitted on behalf of the respondents and has submitted that in view of the prolong absence of the appellant and also no account of misconduct of the appellant as referred to in show-cause notice No. 506/PA, an appropriate punishment has been imposed on him and hence there in no justification for interference.
5. I have considered the arguments carefully advanced from both sides and have also perused the record.
6. In fact the allegations against the appellant involved factual controversy and which could be resolved only by, nothing a regular inquiry. Furthermore, if the Competent Authority was on the view that there were sufficient reasons for dispensing with the regular inquiry as sufficient documentary evidence was available with the Department, it should have passed a specific order recording reasons for dispensing with such inquiry. However, it has not been done in this case, the impugned order whereby the major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on the appellant cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside.
7. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned orders are set aside, the appellant is reinstated in service and the matter is sent back to the competent authority i.e. District Police Officer, Khanewal for ordering regular inquiry into the allegations referred to above. On the receipt of the inquiry report, the competent authority may pass a fresh order into the matter in accordance with law. The nature- of intervening period shall also be determined by the Competent Authority.