' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- Backdrop of this writ petition is that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 11-10-2006 under the provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000, the allegations were refuted, the enquiry was conducted and finally she was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer through the enquiry report submitted before the Authority in December, 2006. The petitioner submitted a representation for her positing in view of exoneration from the allegations but instead of deciding the representation, de novo enquiry was ordered to be held vide order dated 8-9-2007 and finally through order dated 15-5-2008 a notice was issued to the petitioner for submission of her written defence in reference to the charge sheet dated 14-12- 2007, which has caused a serious prejudice to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned action is violative of section 8 of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance as according to the provisions of the Ordinance (ibid) de novo proceedings could be ordered within 30 days of the submission of enquiry report before the Authority and admittedly in the present case the enquiry report was submitted in December, 2006, whereby the petitioner was exonerated from all charges and the impugned action was initiated after a period of almost nine months which offends the provisions of section 8 of the Ordinance.
3. The learned Assistant Advocate-General argued the case at some length and opposed the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner with vehemence. He submits that provisions of section 8 of the ' Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance are not mandatory rather directory in nature and if those are not followed no penal consequences are to be faced by the departmental authorities. Further adds that according to Article 254 of the Constitution of Pakistan, the provisions of section 8 of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance are not binding on the departmental authorities and in support of his contentions he relies on the provisions of Order XX, rule 1(2), C.P.C.
4. Argument heard. Record perused.
5. It shall be advantageous to reproduce the provisions of section 8 of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, as follows:-- "Order to be passed upon a finding.--- Every finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee under section 5 shall, with the recommendation provided for in that section, be submitted to the competent authority and the competent authority may pass such orders thereon as it may deem proper in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance: ' Provided that where the competent authority is satisfied the inquiry proceedings have not been conducted in accordance with the Ordinance or facts and merits of the case have been ignored, it may order initiation of de novo inquiry through a speaking order by giving reasons thereof within a period of 30 days."
6. It is well-settled law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a series of judgments that, ' If law requires to do a thing in a particular manner that must be done in that manner only and not otherwise".
' Undisputedly, the provisions of section 8 of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance has force of law and that cannot be kept aside only to confirm the irregularity/illegality committed by the departmental authorities.
7. So far the provisions of, C.P.C. And the Constitution referred by the learned Assistant Advocate- General are concerned, those are not applicable to the present case.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner was exonerated by an Enquiry Officer who was appointed by the department itself. The departmental authority was empowered to order for de novo proceedings but strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 8 of the Ordinance ibid, whereas the plain language of the said provisions do not permit the authority to do after a lapse of 30 days of submission of enquiry report, wherein the petitioner was exonerated.
9. As observed earlier, in the impugned controversy the competent authority did not adhere to the plain language of section 8 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, hence the impugned order being passed in excess of jurisdiction is set aside.
' The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.