IJAZ . AHMED CHAUDHRY, J. This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 5367, 5368, 5595, 5596 and 5597 of 2007 as in all the said petitions the petitioners have, challenged the second show-cause notice served upon them on the same allegations, which were earlier probed into by the competent authority and they were exonerated, which proceedings had attained finality.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the writ petitioners were earlier charge-sheeted against work done by them, who were issued charge-sheets 4.7.2001, but they were exonerated after the full-fledged inquiry, which was not assailed before the competent forum and attained finality; that the petitioners have been issued second show-cause notice on the same allegations, which is the violation of Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and the subsequent proceedings are liable to be struck of
3. On the other hand the learned Additional A.G. Has opposed this writ petition on the ground that the Chief Secretary/Appellate Authority noticing certain technical flaws and deficiencies in the inquiry report has ordered for de novo inquiry, therefore, the petitioners are being rightly proceeded aganst.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents attached with the petitions as well as the comments submitted by the respondents. The petitioners are Sub- Engineers and Excavators, who were posted at Sargodha and preceeded against under Punjab Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 vide order dated 4.7,2001 and charge- sheets 'containing the allegations against them were also served upon them. The said allegations were thoroughly probed into by the inquiry committee. Finally the Inquiry Committee submitted its findings/recommendations to the competent authority vide inquiry report dated 26.2.2002. On the basis thereof:--- Abid Akram, petitioner was imposed minor penalty of Censure as ordered by respondent No. 2 on 25.1.2003, who did not challenge the penalty and the said order attained finality; Javed Anwer petitioner was imposed major penalty by respondent No. 1 for recovery of Rs. 76,500/- and reduction in time scale at lowest stage vide order dated 29.1.2003 passed by respondent No, 1.
Javed Ahwer petitioner challenged the order before respondent No. 2 who set aside the order passed by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 10.5.2005 and said order has attained the finality; Azhar Iqbal petitioner was also imposed major penalty of reduction in time scale to the lowest stage, vide order dated 29.1.2003, but respondent No. 2 set aside the same vide order 10.5.2005; Muzafar Iqbal petitioner was not found guilty and exonerated by the competent authority in the year 2003 and said order has also attained finality; and lhsan Qadir petitioner was also not found guilty and exonerated by the competent authority in the year 2003 and said order has also attained finality.
5. The grievance of all the petitioners is that 11 other persons were also proceeded separately on the same allegations and they were imposed penalties, who filed appeals before the Chief Secretary and the order for de novo inquiry against the said officials vide order dated 28.12.2006 cannot be implemented against the petitioners as well, who were not party to the said proceedings and the orders as indicated above passed in their favour have already attained finality.
6. Section 9-A of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 deals with the matter in hand, which is reproduced as under:- "(1) The competent authority or the authority to which a representation or review lies under this Ordinance, may call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any authority for purposes of satisfying as to the correctness. Legality or propriety of any finding penalty or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity or any proceedings of such authority.
(2) On examining any record under this section such authority may direct the authority concerned to make further inquiry into the charges of which the accused was acquitted or discharged and may, in its discretion, exercise any or all the powers of an authority under Section 9 of this Ordinance: Provided that no order prejudicial to the accused persons shall be passed under section unless such person has been given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action: Provided further that an order imposing punishment exonerating the accused shall not be revised suo motu or otherwise after the lapse of a period of one year from the date of communication of the order of the competeot authority and in case a representation or review is preferred from the date of communication of the order on such representation or review,"
A perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that the order for imposing punishment or exoneration from the charge cannot be reviewed suo motu. After the orders passed by the competent authority, which attained finality about three years ago, the respondents were not authorized to initiate the proceedings suo motu against the petitioners afresh under the garb of the orders passed oy the Chief Secretary on the appeals filed by the other employees to which the petitioners were not party. It is settled law that no prejudicial order can be passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the affected party. In such circumstances all the writ petitions are accepted and the de novo inquiry to their extent is declared to be of no legal effect and quashed. .