' By virtue of this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has called in question vires Of orders dated 31.01.2011 and 25.05.2011 passed by the Secretary, Local Government & Community Development Department.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as gleaned out from the instant petition, are that the petitioner, who was serving as Town Officer (Finance) in the Local Government and Community Development Department was served with a Charge Sheet dated 25.09.2008. The petitioner contested the inquiry proceedings and finally the inquiry officer vide his report dated 22.07.2010 recommended penalty of withholding of one annual increment for a period of two years against the petitioner. The respondent issued Show Cause Notice to the petitioner for personal hearing and finally vide order dated 31.01.2011 imposed penalty of withholding of promotion of the petitioner for five years. Against the said order, the petitioner filed review petition before the respondent which was accepted and the period of withholding of promotion of the petitioner was reduced from 5 years to 3 years. Against both these orders the petitioner filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. However, subsequently in view of the judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan the same was disposed of being not maintainable. Thereafter the petitioner has filed the instant petition.
3. The legal formulations put forwarded by learned counsel for the petitioner can be summed up in the words that in view of Section 13(6) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability (PEEDA) Act, 2006, when a competent authority disagrees with the recommendations of the inquiry officer/committee it can order for denovo inquiry but in the instant case though the respondent disagreed with the recommendations of the inquiry officer/committee but imposed other penalty against the petitioner without issuing him Show Cause Notice in that respect; that mala fide on the part of the respondent is manifest from the fact that his co-accused who was charged with somewhat similar allegation has been treated mildly whereas the petitioner has been given step- motherly treatment; that though the review filed by the petitioner was accepted but instead of setting aside earlier order the respondent contented with reduction of period of withholding of promotion of the petitioner and that the impugned orders-are not justifiable.
4. Learned Assistant Advocate General, assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, submits that instant petition is hit by the principle of lathes as the same has been filed after passing of two years of the impugned order; that it is prerogative of the competent authority to agree with the recommendations of the inquiry committed or not and that under the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 competent authority can impose any penalty provided under the Act; that the petitioner cannot claim anything on the ground that, his co-accused was provided lesser punishment and that when allegations against the petitioner were proved, competent authority rightly imposed penalty against him.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents annexed with this petition.
6. A perusal of the inquiry report shows that the inquiry officer, while holding the petitioner as guilty, recommended for imposition of penalty of withholding of three annual increments. The respondent being competent authority, after issuing notice of personal hearing proceeded to pass the order withholding promotion of the petitioner for 5 years, which, later on, on the review filed by the petitioner was reduced to 3 years. There is no cavil with the preposition that the competent authority enjoys power to agree or disagree with the recommendations of the inquiry committee while giving solid reasoning but when the competent authority disagrees with the inquiry report it car order for denovo inquiry but where it decides to award other punishment, as recommended by the inquiry officer/inquiry committee, it is bound to give notice to the accused in that behalf.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the case reported as Secretary Government of the Punjab (C&W) and others v. Ikramullah and 5 others (2013 SCM R 572). Despite repeated queries learned Assistant Advocate General as well learned counsel for the respondent failed to establish that any notice to the petitioner was issued inviting his attention as to why some other penalty against the recommendations of the inquiry officer be not imposed against him. This being so, orders impugned in this petition are not sustainable.
7. In view of the above, instant petition is accepted, orders impugned in this petition are set aside with the observation that the respondent would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner from the stage of submission of inquiry report by the inquiry officer. No order as to costs.