' Through this judgment an appeal filed by Malik Tariq Mehmood Sub-Inspector, under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 is being decided.
2. Brief facts- of the case are that the appellant was issued show-cause notice Bearing No. 539/SCM dated 01.07.2011 as follows, "that the undersigned while perusing performance of officers for the period from 01.06.2011 to 13.06.2011, it revealed that efforts made by you for the arrest of P.Os/CAs and performance u/S. 55/109, Cr.P.C. & G. Ordinance does not come up to the mark and it shows poor performance in this regard. You have miserably failed to arrest even a single P.O/C.A during the said period. You were directed to improve your working with respect to arrest of P.O/CA and performance u/S. 55/109, Cr.P.C. & G. Ordinance but it is a matter of great concern that despite repeated directions, you have miserably failed to show any progress/efforts in this regard, which depicts height of inefficiency in a very important filed of police working. Your performance remained disappointing/zero. This exhibits your lethargic and indifferent attitude towards your professional duties. The above state of affairs shows your lack of professionalism and height of inefficiency on your part warranting severe department action against you "The present appellant, replied to the show-cause notice. Vide order dated 27.10.2011 DPO Attock awarded punishment'of forfeiture of approved service for one year with immediate effect under the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006. The present appellant, however, filed service appeal against the said order before the RPO, Rawalpindi Region Rawalpindi and on 16.03.2013, the said appeal was rejected.
3. Being dissatisfied from the above said impugned orders the same have been assailed in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned orders are against the law and are passed without applying judicial mind. Show-cause notice indicate that there was no mention of the performance of the appellant for the month of September 2011 yet his performance for the month of September was taken into consideration thus the impugned order is based on illegality; no separate show-cause notice regarding the month of September 2011 was issued. Major penalty have been awarded in this case without holding regular inquiry which was sine qua non. The appellant has been condemned unheard. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed that as the impugned orders are nullity in the eye of law, therefore, by accepting this appeal, impugned orders be set aside and the service-which was forfeited for one year be restored to him with all back benefits.
5. Conversely learned DDA vehemently opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned orders. Learned DDA contended that the performance of the appellant was not up to the mark, therefore, keeping in view the past record of the present appellant, regular inquiry was not conducted. Impugned orders were rightly passed by the respondents after perusing the available record and past record of the appellant. Thus the respondents did not commit any illegality, while passing the impugned orders, hence, they can not be set aside. As the appeal is meritless, therefore, it be dismissed and the impugned orders be ,upheld.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Carefully scanning the contents of the show-cause notice dated 01.07.2013 No. 539/SCM would bring this fact on the surface that the DPO Attock kept in his mind the performance of the appellant only for 12 days w.e.f.
01.06.2011 to 13.06.2011, during the said 13 days the present appellant allegedly failed to arrest even a single P.O/C.A. As the DPO Attock directed the appellant to improve his work regarding arrest of POs/CAs, but his performance remained inefficient as depicted in the show-cause notice. The said show-cause notice further manifests, that no regular inquiry was carried out by the respondents before awarding the major penalty in the shape of forfeiture of approved service for one year.
Annexure-B attached with this appeal by the appellant manifests that during the said 12 days he registered 02 cases under Arms ordinance, 04 cases under the CNSA 1997, arrested 05 Court absconders, took action under Sections 55/110 against one Sultan, took action against the 06 persons under the provisions of Sections- 107/151; Cr.P.C., took action against the 07 persons under Sections 107/150, Cr.P.C., took. 03 motorcycles in police custody u, S. 550, Cr.P.C. There is no evidence available on the record that the figures provided by the present appellant in reply to the show- cause notice before the DPO Attock were not based on reality and were !Fudged figures. It is also worthwhile to add that in the show-cause notice alleged period of zero performance is shown for 13 days w.e.f.
01.06.2011 to 13.06.2011, department while passing the impugned order dated 27.10.2011 performance of the month of September 2011 was also considered which was contrary to law and principle of natural justice. While deciding departmental appeal, RPO Rawalpindi also took. Into account the eight bad entries available in the service record of the present appellant. Regarding the said had entries, show-cause notice is completely silent. Admittedly before passing the major penalty, as mentioned above, it was the duty of the respondents/department to have provided fair opportunity to the appellant for his hearing, to conduct regular inquiry and to provide fair opportunity to appellant in order to dig out the truth which has not been done in this case. It is also noticed that no mechanisms or guideline was provided to the appellant for showing his performance 'during these 13 days. In absence of any guideline, the impugned punishment prima Facie seemed arbitrary. As the respondents have violated the principles of . Natural justice, hence, this appeal is accepted. Impugned orders are set aside. Case is remanded to the competent authority to initiate inquiry and to proceed in accordance with law. The question of back benefits is left open to be decided by the competent authority.