Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant was issued seven show-cause notices on the charge of willful absence from duty under PEEDA, Act, 2006. The appellant did not submit reply to any show-cause notice. Resultantly, the authority awarded him major penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 03.05.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed a departmental appeal before Respondent No. 2, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 05.08.2008. Hence, the present appeal.
2. The counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant remained ill during the alleged period of absence and as such could not submit reply to the show-cause notices. The counsel for the appellant submitted medical certificates. He stated that if the authority was not satisfied then he should have referred the case for second medical opinion to the Medical Board regarding his illness. He further stated that the appellant has been awarded major penalty of dismissal from service without holding a regular departmental inquiry, which is against law and facts of the case. .
3. The respondents and Learned District Attorney opposed the contentions of the counsel for the appellant. It was contended that the appellant is a irresponsible official. Even, he did not bother to submit reply to any show-cause notice and remained away from his duty without prior permission of the competent authority. The appellant being a civil servant was required to obey the rules and regulations framed for the smooth administration of a disciplined force.
4. Arguments advanced by the parties heard and available record gone through. It is settled principle of law as held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that a Civil Servant cannot be ousted from service without holding a regular inquiry. If a major penalty is to be imposed, the civil servant should be given proper way of defending himself by way of conducting a regular departmental inquiry. So, to meet the ends of justice, it will be appropriate to remand the case to departmental competent authority to hold a regular inquiry, wherein the authenticity of medical certificates will also be checked and after holding the regular inquiry in accordance with law.
5. In view of the above discussions, I accept the present appeal and set aside the impugned orders dated 03.05.2008 and 05.08.2008, passed by the respondents. The case is remanded to the competent authority to hold a regular inquiry into the matter in accordance with law. The intervening period will depend upon the outcome of the denovo proceedings.