' Briefly stated disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant Warder No, 4554 of District Jail Kasur under the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 on the charge of lodging fake complaint before the Chief Secretary Punjab against the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab Lahore leveling allegations of corruption and misappropriation. As a result thereof the Superintendent District Jail, Kasur was appointed as inquiry officer by the DIG Prisons, Lahore to look into the matter who conducted inquiry and found that motive behind filing this application was nothing but to get himself transferred back to Central Jail Sahiwal. Consequently the appellant was held guilty of misconduct as defined in Section 2n(i) and (v) of PEEDA Act, 2006 and Rules 1024, 1034 (iii) 1106 b, 1140 (ii) and 1141 of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978. Resultant, the Superintendent, District Jail Kasur exercising his powers as competent authority issued show-cause notice dated 02.04.2014, which was replied by the appellant. Feeling dissatisfied with appellant's explanation, Superintendent, District Jail Kasur passed impugned order dated 10.04.2014 awarding the appellant major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. Said order was called in question through departmental appeal preferred to DIG Prisons, Punjab Lahore, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 27.06.2014, hence this appeal filed on 25.07.2014.
2.Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has not been granted fair opportunity to defend himself as the application of the appellant was forwarded through said IG Prisons, Punjab Lahore to the Superintendent, District Jail Kasur who himself assumed the role of prosecutor and a judge and passed the impugned penalty order. Therefore, he maintained that the entire action of the punishing authority is against the provisions of Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which provides that due process of law is an inalienable right of every citizen. Therefore, learned counsel prayed for the setting aside of the penalty order.
3.Conversely, the learned District Attorney submits that during inquiry proceedings the appellant failed to produce a single witness or evidence with regard to allegations leveled against the Inspector General of Prisons and he just to get himself transferred used unfair violating the Rules of Prison Department and as such the appellant was rightly punished and the impugned orders are liable to be upheld.
4.Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Irrespective of the merits' of the case, the most important factor is that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant under the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 by the Superintendent District Jail, Kasur being competent authority and thereafter he himself conducted the inquiry and then passed penalty order in violation of Section 9 of the Act ibid which provides that the competent authority will appoint the inquiry officer or an inquiry committee to probe the matter.
But the action of the Superintendent District Jail, Kasur to hold an inquiry himself is not only the violation of above said provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 but also violation of Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which provides that due process of law is an inalienable right of every citizen. With this backdrop, I find the impugned orders nullity in the eye of law and are liable to be set aside.
6. In view of above, this appeal is partially allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded back to the competent authority to conduct an inquiry by appointing an impartial inquiry officer as per procedure. Resultant, the appellant is reinstated into service. Intervening period during which he remained out service is treated as leave of the kind due.