Facts of the case as stated in the memorandum of appeal briefly are, that the appellant was proceeded against by way of show-cause notice Bearing No, 274-PA-INV dated 17.6.2010 under the PEEDA Act, 2006 by SP, Investigation Sahiwal on the following allegations:-- "On 8,6.10 an incident took place near Eastern Bye Pass in the area of PS Ghalla Mandi. The undersigned directed you to reach at the spot immediately but you failed to comply the orders and did not reach at the spot. Furthermore, you also used undisciplined language with the Wireless Operator, District Wireless Control, Sahiwal. The above state of affairs shows your undisciplined/irresponsible attitude and lack of interest in the discharge of official duties."
He submitted reply dated 28.6.2010 rebutting the allegations. Although he was heard in person on 2.7.2010 yet disregarding factual position, S.P Investigation, Sahiwal vide Order No, 2387-91/PA-Inv dated 7.7.2010 awarded him penalty of withholding of increment for two years. He preferred departmental appeal. He was heard by RPO, Sahiwal on 30.12.2010. Without application of independent mind he rejected his appeal vide Order No, 108-09/PS dated 3.1.2011 hence this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that S.P. Investigation is not appointing authority for junior police officials in a district in terms of Article 23 read with 2 of the Police Order, 2002 and as such is not competent authority in terms of Section 2(f)(ii) of the PEEDA Act, 2006. SP Investigation, Sahiwal being not appointing authority, he had no jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against the appellant. Perusal of show-cause notice would indicate that inquiry was dispensed with which is against law because controversial facts require to be proved through regular inquiry. Impugned order of SP Investigation, Sahiwal is without authority, unlawful and void. Subsequent order of RPO, Sahiwal being based on a void order is also nullity in the eye of law. Procedure prescribed under the PEEDA Act, 2006 having not been observed the orders of the departmental authorities are void and illegal. He prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned, orders set aside.
3. Learned DDA assisted by the D. R submits that he was called to immediately reach point of occurrence of crime but he intentionally delayed and as a result law and order situation arose. D.R concedes that S.P Investigation is not appointing authority for junior police officials in a district.
4. Arguments advanced by the parties heard. Record produced and parawise comments submitted perused. S.P. Investigation is not appointing authority as per provisions of Article 23 read with 2 of the Police Order, 2002 and as such is not competent authority in terms of Section 2(f)(ii) of the PEEDA Act, 2006. Disciplinary action taken by SP Investigation against the appellant, being not competent authority is illegal. The impugned order dated 7.7.2010 is without authority, unlawful and void. Inquiry was dispensed with in mechanical way disregarding the fact that allegations had been controverted by the appellant in his defence reply. Impugned order dated 3.1.2011 of RPO Sahiwal whereby his departmental appeal was rejected is also not competent being based on a void order.
5. In view of the legal position discussed supra impugned orders of S.P Investigation and RPO, Sahiwal being illegal, without authority and void are set aside with the direction to restore the original service status of the appellant as it was before passing of the impugned orders.