The appellant was proceeded against under the PEEDA Act, 2006 and a show-cause notice dated 9.1.2010 was issued to him. The charges contained therein are re-produced as under:-- "He while posted as incharge Investigation PS Gogera, has failed to perform his official duties in an appropriate manner in that he has registered a case FIR No, 457/09 u/S. 376 PPC on 01.10.2009 but after a short period of one day declared this case as false and fabricated on 02.10.2009 without any solid evidence vide case Diary No, 2 while medical examination of victim was made on the orders of competent Court on 22.10.2009. He has dropped this case on the basis of bogus judicial stamp paper provided by Lal Khan, applicant etc. A case FIR No, 885/90 u/Ss. 419/420/468/471, PPC .PS Sadar Okara was registered about these bogus judicial stamp papers, which was later cancelled.
Moreover, you have received Rs, 16000/- as illegal gratification for the registration of above case i,e, FIR: No, 467/09. He has also conducted the investigation of this case in a defective manner. The allegations have been inquired into by ADIG/Sahiwal. Region, Sahiwal in which he has found guilty of the above charges.
The appellant filed his reply to the show-cause notice on 02.02.2010 wherein he denied that he received illegal gratification from the complainant of the case.
On the basis of fact finding inquiry conducted by ADIG, Sahiwal Region, inquiry under the PEEDA Act was dispensed with and major penalty of reduction in rank from SI to ASI was imposed by the Respondent No, 1 vide his order 05.03.2010. Departmental appeal was dismissed by Respondent No, 2 vide his order dated 05.03.2010. His revision petition also met the same fate as per order dated 03.01.2012 passed by the AIGP, Punjab, Lahore. Aggrieved by the above mentioned orders the appellant filed the present appeal.
2. The appellant died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal heirs filed an application for impleading them as party. Arguments of the parties on the application and the appeal have been heard.
3. Learned-counsel for the appellant contended that Mst. Anwar Bibi widow and Mr. Waseem Akram son of the appellant should be impleaded as party as they are entitled to pensions and other benefits. He relied upon the judgment of the PST in Appeal No, 1569 of 2009 and 3155 of 2008 as well as on the case reported as 2006 SCM R 1287. It has been further contended that evidence of the complainant and other witnesses was not recorded and the appellant was not provided opportunity to rebut their stance. He stated that here was no tangible evidence Against the appellant and as such the fact finding inquiry cannot be used against him. He added that as there were controversial facts involved in the present case regular inquiry was mandatory and the provisions of dispensation of regular inquiry were misused by the Respondent No,
1. According to him the impugned orders are based on conjectures and as such are liable to be set aside.
4. Learned District Attorney contended that on the death of the appellant, his appeal abates and his legal heirs have no rights to pursue the appeal and such they cannot be impleaded as party in the place of the appellant. According to him a fact finding inquiry was made before issuance of show-cause notice and no regular inquiry was required to be conducted. The allegations were established in the inquiry and the penalty imposed is well justified.
5. After the death of the appellant legal heirs of the appellant will inherit pensionary benefits and in circumstances the appeal will not abate. Legal heirs of the appellant have a right to be impleaded as a party and to pray for a decision on merit. Therefore, the application for impleading them is accepted.
6. The first part of the allegation against, the appellant is that he failed to perform his official duties in an appropriate manner as he registered a case FIR No, 457/09 u/S. 376, PPC on 1.10.2009 but after a short period of one day he declared the case to be false and fabricated without any solid evidence vide case Diary No, 2 while medical examination of victim was made on the orders of competent Court on 22.10.2009. He dropped the case on the basis of bogus judicial stamp paper provided by Lal Khan, applicant. A case FIR No, 885/90 u/Ss. 419/420/468/471, PPC PS Sadar Okara was registered about these bogus judicial stamp papers, which was later cancelled. This part of allegation is certainly based on the facts which are apparent from the face of the record and regular inquiry could have been dispensed with. But the other part of the allegation that he received Rs, 16,000/- as bribe, did need proper inquiry and evidence should have been recorded to establish the charge to this extent. Perusal of the impugned orders reveals that no evidence has been brought on record to establish this part of allegation. This part of allegation could have not been proved without bringing evidence on record and confronting the appellant with the same.
Therefore, it cannot be held that the charge to the extent of receiving Rs, 16,000/- was proved against the appellant. However, misconduct of the appellant is evident from the facts on record that he dropped the case without proper investigation. The charge is, therefore, partially proved.
7. The contention of the appellant that penalty of reduction in rank from SI to ASI without specifying the period of such reduction is unlawful is correct. The penalty has been imposed under the PEEDA Act, 2006. Relevant provisions contained in its Section 4(1)(b)(ii) under the heading major penalties read "reduction to a lower post and pay scale from the substantive or regular post for a specific period subject to a maximum of five years". Thus the competent authority was not justified in imposing penalty of reduction to the lower post and pay scale for indefinite period. As the charge is partially established and the penalty imposed is not as authorized under the law, the penalty of reduction to the lower post of ASI is restricted to a period of one year only. The appellant would be deemed to have been restored to his substantive/regular post of SI on the completion of the reduction period of one year. The case is remanded to Respondent No, 1 for determining pension and other benefits on the basis of the revised penalty as decided above. The legal heirs of the appellant. Shall be allowed all pensionary and other benefits of which they are entitled under the law.