' Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was proceeded against departmental under the PEEDA Act, 2006 by the Respondent. No. 1 on the following allegation of alleged absence from duty w.e.f.
1.12.2009. Three notices were sent to the appellant at his home address but the appellant did not turn up. Subsequently, the appellant was removed from service under the PEEDA Act, 2006 vide impugned order dated 1.4.2010 passed by the Respondent No. 1/DIG Prisons, Lahore. His departmental appeal remained abortive vide impugned order dated 21.12.2011, hence this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was not issued show-cause notice. He was not afforded opportunity of personal hearing. Shorter procedure was adopted by the competent authority while imposing major penalty of removal from service. He added that the appellant has been condemned unheard which is violation of principle of natural justice. He added that the alleged absence period was regularized by treating the same as leave without pay. He prayed for acceptance of the instant appeal.
3. Conversely, the learned District Attorney defended the impugned orders passed by the departmental authorities. He prayed that the appeal may be dismissed being devoid of merits
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. The impugned order dated 1.4.2010 was passed by the DIG Prisons, Lahore Region, Lahore whereby the appellant was saddled with the penalty of removal from service on account of absence 1 commencing from 1.12.2009. The-recital and contents of the impugned order speak that no show-cause notice or charge sheet was issued under the provisions of the PEEDA Act, 2006.
Mere sending the notice to the appellant at his home address for joining his duties is not sufficient to substitute the recognized procedure and, principle for departmental disciplinary action. Be that as it may the impugned order dated 1.4.2010 itself evinces that the period of absence was directed to be treated, as extraordinary leave without pay. The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in LDA's case (see 2006 SCMR 434) and a Pro. M. Wali Khan's case (see 2007 PLC (CS) 601 discussed about the period of absence from duty regarding which the authority treated the same as leave without pay. According to the dictum of the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan when the departmental authority itself treated the period during which appellant remained absent/out of service as leave without pay, it could not penalize him from the alleged absence. In case in hand the period of absence of the appellant was treated as extraordinary leave without pay and thereby authority allowed the appellant extraordinary leave without pay.. In such a way the authority himself regularized the absence of the appellant. In such circumstances and facts the very ground for the departmental action and penalty had vanished therefore in view of the judgments of the.
Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan (2006 SCMR, 434, 2007 PLC (CS) 601) the impugned orders dated 1.4.2010 and 21.12.2011 are not sustainable in the eye of law. Resultantly the appeal is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The appellant shall stand reinstated in service. The intervening period shall be treated as leave of the kind due.