The appellant while serving as a Constable in District Gujranwala was departmentally proceeded against vide show cause notice dared 17.9.2008 with the following allegations:--
(a) The general public complained about your misbehaviour and corruption.
(b) The public perception is, that you are thoroughly corrupt.
(c) Being an ill reputed official you brought bad name for the police department.
(d) You lowered the image of police service in the eyes of general public.
(e) You failed to perform your official duties with efficiency and alacrity according to provision of Police Order, 2002.
(f) Your conduct is prejudicial and unbecoming of a member of disciplined force like police.
The appellant submitted reply to show cause notice denying the allegations. However vide order dated 8.10.2008, the Respondent No. 1 awarded the punishment of dismissal from service by proceeding under Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The appellant preferred departmental appeal which was rejected by Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 2.12.2008/18.12.2008.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned orders are against law and fact; that no regular inquiry was conducted and that even otherwise, the allegations mentioned in the show cause notices were of general nature.
3. The appeal has been opposed. The respondents maintained that as departmental inquiry was disposed with, therefore there was no need to bring on record any evidence by prosecution side and that before passing the impugned order all codal formalities has been observed.
4. Arguments advanced on behalf of the parties have been considered and available record gone through.
5. In this case though factual aspects were alleged in the show cause notice, still the inquiry was dispensed with which was not proper because no material evidence, documentary or otherwise, was pointed out. Even otherwise, all the allegations mentioned in the show cause notices are of general nature and no specific instance has been quoted but still the authority in the impugned order came to the conclusion that the appellant was thoroughly corrupt and ill reputed and thus charge of misconduct and corruption was established. Such remarks should have been avoided in the absence of any supporting material which could only be collected during holding of a regular inquiry. But the deciding factor in this appeal is that allegations leveled in the show cause notice being general in nature, no penalty could be provided by adopting a summary procedure.
Impugned orders are thus not sustainable.
6. As a result of above discussion, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. Consequently the appellant shall be reinstated in service. The period which the appellant spent out of service shall be treated as leave of the kind due.