' Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the appellant alongwith Muhammad Javed, Assistant Superintendent Jail (Ops) was jointly proceeded against departmentally by Respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 on the charge of extorting money amounting to Rs. 10000, Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 3000 (Rs. 33000) from a convicted prisoner (Ahmed Din @ Nikkoo) and Muhammad Habib Goraya in lieu of transfer of said convicted prisoner from Central Jail, Faisalabad to some other jail of their choice. Vide initiation of inquiry order dated 25.08.2012, Mr. Naveed Ashraf, MG (S&D) was appointed as inquiry officer who after conducting a detailed inquiry, held the appellant and his co-accused guilty of the charges and recommended awarding of major penalty to both the accused. On receipt of inquiry report, the competent authority issued a show-cause-cum-personal hearing notice to the appellant alongwith his co-accused and accordingly heard them on 28.02.2013. Ultimately, the competent authority/IG Prisons awarded the appellant major penalty of "Dismissal from Service" vide order dated 03.04.2015. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred departmental appeal before Respondent No. 2/Secretary Home Department who too rejected the same vide order dated 19.12.2013. Hence, the instant appeal.
2. At the very outset learned counsel for the appellant argued the ease on the single law point whether an already removed civil servant can be proceeded against under PEEDA Act, 2006 and punished without having the status of a civil servants as provided under Section 1(4)(i) of the Act ibid as well as law laid down in 2006 PLC (CS) 887 because before award of impugned penalty, Superintendent Jail/Competent Authority, Faisalabad after issuing a show-cause notice dated 22.09.2012 had already removed the appellant from service vide order dated 18.10.2012, on the charge of wilful absence from duty which was challenged through departmental appeal before the DIG Prisons, Faisalabad Range and the same was yet to be finalized.
3. Conversely, learned Deputy District Attorney assisted by departmental representatives opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant by stating that the proceedings in the instant case were initiated before the award of penalty, referred by the learned counsel of the appellant and as such the same are not unlawful.
4. I have heard the arguments from both the parties and perused the relevant record.
5. Admittedly, an employee can only be proceeded against by the departmental authorities under PEEDA Act, 2006 (Section 1(4)(i) and (h)(ii)) when such employee has the status of a serving civil servant and not a person already removed or dismissed who had lost such status. In the instant case the appellant was dismissed from service vide order dated 03.4.2013, whereas, at that time he (the appellant) had already stood removed from service vide order dated 18.10.2012 by the competent authority i.e. Superintendent. Jail, Faisalabad and his appeal was still pending decision before the departmental appellate authority. As such, his dismissal in the instant case is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly declared as null and void. However, the competent authority/ Superintendent Central Jail, Faisalabad will be at liberty to revive disciplinary proceedings in the instant case as and when the appellant regains the status of a civil secant in case his previous conviction, referred before, is set aside by any competent forum.
7. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.