' Brief facts of the case are that appellant was a Warder in Central Jail. Lahore. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under PEEDA Act, 2006 on the charge of absence from duty w.e.f 12.03.2012. He was issued show-cause notices dated 14.03.2012, 26.03.2012 & 13.04.2012, but he did not respond. Resultantly, ex-parte action was taken and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Lahore passed impugned order dated 14.05.2012 awarding the appellant penalty of removal from service. Aggrieved, appellant preferred departmental appeal to DIG, Prisons, Lahore, who rejected the same vide impugned order dated 02.11.2012. Feeling still aggrieved, appellant preferred revision petition to IG Prisons, Punjab, Lahore, but in vain. Hence, this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that alleged show-cause notices dated 14.03.2012, 26.03.2012 & 13.04.2012 were never served upon the appellant and as such the appellant has been condemned, unheard. It was further contended that the Superintendent, Central Jail, Lahore passed penalty orders dated 14.05.2012 having retrospective effect as the appellant was removed from service from the date of his absence. He pleaded that as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a number of reported judgments like 1985 SCMR 1178, 1986 PLC (CS)
863. 1997 SCMR 503, 2004 SCMR 1031, 2005 SCMR 492, 2006 PLC (CS) 766 and 2011 SCMR 1220, dismissal order passed with effect from previous date was held illegal. He stated that every order has to effect immediately and can not be made effective retrospectively. Learned counsel further submitted that even otherwise alleged absence was not willful, rather due to some unavoidable circumstances i.e. His sickness as well as some domestic affairs. He stated that to dig out the truth, it was necessary to hold a regular inquiry, before awarding the appellant major penalty. Finally the learned counsel pleaded that appellant has been treated harshly as the penalty awarded to him is more than the gravity of the charges.
3. The learned District Attorney opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant relying upon parawise comments submitted by the respondents and stated that in the case of absence there was no need to hold a regular inquiry, which was rightly dispensed with. He further submitted that appellant remained absent from duty for more than 02 month without prior permission of the competent authority. Three show-cause notices were issued to the appellant, but he did not bother to reply. Therefore, he requested for the rejection of the appeal.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned District Attorney and have gone through the record.
' The appellant in Para-1 of the instant, appeal has specifically taken the stance, that he was not served with show-cause notices as enunciated in the penalty orders. In reply to this para, the punishing authority in his parawise comments stated that appellant was sent these notices under registered cover. However, neither receipts of registered post have been annexed alongwith para wise comments nor produced during arguments. So, it is concluded that the appellant was condemned unheard. Further, I am guided by above referred judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein it has been held that order of penalty if passed retrospectively has no value in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. The penalty order dated 14.05.2012 shows that penalty of "removal from service" was made effective from the date of absence, which is violative of above referred judgments. So, I find that the impugned orders have been passed with legal lacunas. However, at this belated stage I think that remand of the case will defeat the ends of justice. So, I intend to reduce; the quantum of penalty, in the interest of justice. I, therefore, partially accept this appeal and modify the impugned orders converting penalty of removal from service into withholding of increment for one year. Resultantly, the appellant is reinstated into service, Intervening period is treated as leave of the kind due.