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 FIR No, 158 dated 13.10.2001 u/S. 302/148/149 PPC P.S. Mela, district Sargodha was produced by this 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 FIR No, 179 dated 4.10.2002 u/S. 344/337-K PPC was registered at P.S. 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 IGP/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 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 DIG, 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 Muhammad was 11.11.2001 and not 24.10.2001 as alleged and that, after the accused was arrested and FIR No, 158 dated 13.10.2001 u/S. 302/148/149 PPC, P.S. Mela was registered against him which is still pending in trial Court. Reliance was placed was placed on PLJ 2005 Tr.C. (Services) 238, PLJ 2003 Tr.C. (Services) 182 and PLJ 1994 Tr.C. (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 ground 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 DIG/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, SRO-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 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. Consigned to record.