Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was issued a show-cause notice dated 10.01.2005 by Superintendent of Police City Division Gujranwala (Respondent No. 1) on the following charges:-- "Under the order of worthy Dy. Inspector General of Police, Gujranwala Region, Gujranwala, a campaign for the arrest of POPS and CAs was launched in Gujranwala Region w.e.f. 18.11.2004 to 31.12.2004. A target of arrest of at least 50% POS and CAs was fixed to achieve. During the campaign the W/DIG of Police, Gujranwala Region, Gujranwala and DPO Gujranwala as well as the undersigned conveyed fin very clear words that by making every effort, the target would have be dealt with severely. At the end of the campaign, your individual performance has been observed.
As per record 24 Pos and 11 CAs were allotted to you but you have been miserable failed to achieve the target and arrested only 08 Pos and nil CAs. It indicates that no attention has been paid by you towards this important task due to which your personal performance remained quite unsatisfactory. You are just passing the time, in the department. This act on your part speaks about negligence and inefficiently which warrants initiation of stern departmental action against you."
2. Respondent No 1 feeling dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the appellant against the show- cause notice imposed the penalty of stoppage of increment for one year vide order dated 09.05.2009. Appellant preferred a departmental appeal which was dismissed by Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 04.09.2009. Hence the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following points:--
(i) Allegations levelled against the appellant did not constitute misconduct, as such, the impugned penalty cannot be imposed" upon the appellant.
(ii) The respondents have miserably been failed to point out any intentional or wilful lapse on part of the appellant while not complying with the directions given to him.
(iii)That several accused had left the place of abode and were not within the territorial jurisdiction of the appellant. He also contended that despite such difficult situation, appellant arrested 8 proclaimed offenders out of 24 allotted to him and there is no magic-sword lying with him so that he could arrest all accused person within time desired by the respondents.
(iv)Officers prior and after his posting also failed to arrest the proclaimed offenders, Court absconders etc allotted to them but no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him.
(v)Respondent No. 1 was neither appointing authority nor could act as competent authority in disciplinary proceedings against the appellant.
4. The department has raised the following points:--
(i) The appellant was given specific target but he miserably failed to achieve it.
(ii) The allegations levelled against the appellant were much clear and as such it was not considered necessary by the punishing authority to hold a regular inquiry into the matter.
(iii)A campaign for the arrest of Pos/Case was launched in Gujranwala Region, w.e.f. 18.11.2004 to 13.12.2004. He was given a target to arrest 24 Pos and 11 CAs during the said campaign but he failed to achieve the target and arrested only 08 Pos and none of the Court absconders.
5. Admittedly, Respondent No. 1 was not the appointing authority of the appellant whereas in terms of notification dated 27.7.2006 only the appointing authority was empowered by the Chief Minister to act as competent authority in disciplinary matters under PEEDA Act, 2006. This being a pure question of jurisdiction as well as law can be raised at any time as held by the apex Court in 2008 SCM R 240. In the present case Respondent No. 1 was admittedly not the competent authority, therefore, the proceedings initiated by him and the penalty imposed by him is liable to be declared as without jurisdiction as well as coram-non-judice.
7. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside.
The competent authority shall, however, be at liberty to proceed against the appellant on the charges as per law/rules.