Brief facts of the case are that, while posted as Warder in District Jail Sialkot, the appellant was served with charge sheet dated 30.10.2010, containing the allegations of delivering narcotics and mobile phone inside the jail to facilitate the prisoners. The appellant submitted reply to the charge sheet, wherein, he specifically refuted the allegations. However, the Respondent No, 1 disagreeing with his explanation, passed impugned order dated 30.10.2010 imposing major penalty of removal from service upon the appellant. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed departmental appeal before Respondent No, 2, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 27.01.2011. Feeling still aggrieved, the appellant filed revision petition before Respondent No, 3, who also rejected the same vide impugned order dated 09.03.2011. Hence, this appeals.
2. The counsel for the appellant argued that a material controversy was involved in the instant case. However, no regular inquiry was conducted to resolve such controversy. He stated that competent authority while proceeding against the appellant failed to specify the reason for dispensing with the regular inquiry. He further submitted that the statement of allegations was issued under PRSO 2000, whereas, the penalty was awarded under PEEDA Act, 2006 which is not permissible under the law. The counsel for the appellant further argued that the appellant was forced to sign on black paper, which he could not refuse under threat and dire consequences, which the respondent considered it as confession. He lastly prayed for the setting aside of the impugned orders.
3. The learned District Attorney opposed the contentions of the counsel for the appellant by relying on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents.
4. Arguments of the parties heard and available record gone through.
5. The record produced by the appellant reveals that the appellant was issued a statement of allegations containing the allegations of delivering narcotics and mobile phone inside the jail to facilitate, the prisoners, whereas, he specifically refuted the allegations in reply to show-cause notice. As such to resolve the factual controversy a regular inquiry should, have been held. But, the competent authority did not hold a regular inquiry to resolve the factual controversy. Therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law and are liable to be set aside. Moreover, the competent authority issued statement of allegation dated 30.10.2.010 under PRSO 2000 and removed the appellant from service under PEEDA Act, 2006 on the same date i,e, 30.10.2010, whereas, PEEDA Act was promulgated on 16th October 2006. Since, the PEEDA Act, 2006 was in force at that time as such the proceedings should have been initiated under the prevailing Act. Prima facie, it is clear that alleged confessional statement was obtained from the appellant under duress/coercion, otherwise a regular departmental enquiry should have been held, that might have resolved, the controversies.
6. In view of above discussions, I accept the present appeal and set aside the impugned orders dated 30.10.2010, 27.01.2011 and 09.03,2011. Resultantly, the appellant is reinstated into service. The ease is remanded to the competent authority to hold a regular inquiry under PEEDA Act, 2006. The fate of the intervening period will depend upon the outcome of the regular inquiry.