Since common questions of law viz jurisdiction of the competent authority to pass the impugned order is involved, therefore all these appeals are disposed of through this single order:--
(i) Ghulam Murtaza Wattoo Vs Capital City Police Officer, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No. 1242/2010);
(ii) Ghulam Murtaza Wattoo Vs Capital City Police Officer, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No. 1370/2010); (iii)Ghulam Murtaza Wattoo Vs Capital City Police Officer, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No. 1371/2010); (iv)Ghulam Murtaza Wattoo Vs Capital City Police Officer, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No. 1372/2010);
(v) Ghulam Murtaza Wattoo Vs Capital City Police Officer, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No. 1373/2010); (vi)Ghulam Murtaza Wattoo Vs Capital City Police Officer, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No. 1374/2010);
(vii) Ghulam Murtaza Wattoo Vs Capital City Police Officer, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No. 1375/2010);
(viii) Ghulam Murtaza Wattoo Vs Capital City Police Officer, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No. 1376/2010);
(ix) Ghulam Murtaza Wattoo Vs Capital City Police Officer, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No. 1377/2010);
(x) Ghulam Murtaza Wattoo Vs Capital City Police Officer, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No. 1378/2010);
(xi) Ghulam Murtaza Wattoo Vs Capital City Police Officer, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No. 1379/2010).
2. The appellant while posted as Sub-Inspector on different Police Stations of Lahore was proceeded against departmentally by Senior Superintendent of Police, Investigation, Lahore namely Zulfiqar Hameed and Was also awarded different penalties on different dates and the departmental appeals filed by the appellant were also dismissed by the Capital City Police Officer, Lahore. Hence these appeals.
3. The sole point requiring determination in this case is whether for the purpose of Lahore City SSP Investigation was the competent authority for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant in terms of Section 2(I) read with Section 5 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The contention of the appellant is that as in the case of appellant/SI, CCPO, Lahore was the appointing authority, therefore in terms of the above noted provisions of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, as well as Notification issued by the Chief Minister, Govt. of Punjab on 16.11.2006 only the appointing authority being competent authority could initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, therefore the order passed by SSP Investigation, Lahore imposing different penalties on the appellant was without lawful authority and of no legal effect and as the basic order was void, hence subsequent order of CCPO, Lahore in the capacity of departmental appellate authority was also illegal, void and without jurisdiction as held by the apex Court in PLD 1958 SC 104 and PLD 1990 1070.
4. In view of the above noted facts, Mr.. Zulfiqar Hameed, SSP Investigation Lahore was asked to submit report showing; his authority to pass the impugned order, however Mr. Zulfiqar Hameed, SSP Investigation failed to submit any report to this effect.
5. With at commenting upon the merits of the case lest it could prejudice either of the parties this appeal is accepted purely on the ground of want of jurisdiction on the part of Mr. Zulfiqar Hameed, SSP Investigation, Lahore who being not appointing authority of the appellant as SI was neither competent authority nor had the jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, Only the appointing authority was competent to initiate such proceedings which was in the present case CCPO, Lahore himself.
6. Resultantly all these appeals are allowed, the impugned orders of the authorities below are set aside being without lawful authority. However, Capital City Police Officer, Lahore if so advised can still initiate fresh proceedings against the appellant in accordance with law.