' Brief facts of the case are that the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala by invoking the provisions of Punjab Removal from service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, awarded punishment of "Dismissal from service" against the present appellant vide order dated 13.12.2004. Against this order, departmental appeal was filed, which was rejected being time barred by the City Police Officer, Gujranwaia vide order dated 16.12.2008. Feeling still aggrieved, the appellant filed revision petition, which was also rejected being time barred by the Regional Police Officer, Gujranwala vide his order dated 28.10.2013. Hence, this appeal.
2. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned D.A heard and record perused.
3. The Addl. Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala issued show cause notice bearing No, 4764/ST-II dated 23.10.2004 against the present appellant on the following charges: "While posted at District Police Lines, Gujranwala, were transferred at Police Station Civil lines. Your departure was recorded over DD report over DD report No, 59, dated 23.09.2004. As per report submitted by OSI of this office, you have not reported your arrival at your next place of posting so far. It indicates that you are absent from your official duties without obtaining leave or permission from the authority. Further, you are still at large. Your willful absence from official duty is quite reprehensible which comes in the ambit of misconduct warranting initiation of stern departmental action against you."
4. Pursuant to the above said charges, the Addl. Superintendent of Police Gujranwala due to absence of the appellant, initiated proceedings against the appellant under the provisions of Punjab Removal from service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, and at the same time, treated his said absence period as leave without pay vide his order dated 13.12,2004, meaning thereby he himself condoned/regularized his said absence as leave hence there was no occasion available for Respondent No, 1 for ousting the appellant from service. This crucial fact perhaps escaped from the notice of the departmental appellate authority as well as Revisional authority while deciding departmental appeal as well as revision petition.
5. Careful scanning of the record would bring this fact on the surface that the present appellant was appointed by the order of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala, in the case in hand, the Addl. Superintendent of Police Gujranwala initiated proceedings by issuing show cause notice dated 23.10.2004 under the provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and ultimately inflicted the major penalty of dismissal from service. Section 2(aa) of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 defines the competent authority as follows: "Competent authority means the Chief Minister and where, in relation to any person or class of persons, the Chief Minister authorizes any officer or authority, not being inferior in rank to the appointing authority prescribed for the post held by the person against whom sanction is proposed to taken to exercise the powers of competent authority under this Ordinance, that officer or authority, and in relation to any employee of a Court or a Tribunal functioning under the Punjab Government, the appointing authority or the Chairman or Presiding Officer of the Court of the Tribunal on being authorized by the appointing authority to exercise the powers of competent authority under this Ordinance;"
6. As mentioned above in the instant case, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala appointed the appellant and in the light of Section 2(aa) of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 could have initiated proceedings against the appellant.
7. In my humble opinion in the present case, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala was incompetent authority to initiate departmental proceedings and to inflict punishment impugned against the present appellant. This crucial fact perhaps escaped from the notice of the departmental appellate authority as well as Revision authority while deciding departmental appeal as well as Revision, thus fell in error.
8. It is settled principal of law that when the basic order was void ab-initio, question of limitation would not stand in the way of the appellant-reliance is placed on 2014 SCM R 1189.
8. In view of what has been discussed above and without touching the merits of the case, the appeal is allowed/accepted, the appellant is reinstated in service with immediate effect and all the impugned orders are set aside. Case is remanded to the competent authority for taking denovo proceedings against the present appellant in accordance with law. Intervening period shall also be decided by the competent authority.
(R.A.) .