This judgment will decide an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the of PEEDA Act, 2006.
2. Arguments heard and available record perused.
3. The Superintendent District Jail, Shahpur vide his order dated 26.02.2013 inflicted major penalty of Removal from service by invoking the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006. Being aggrieved, the above said order was challenged by filing departmental appeal, which was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Faisalabad Region Faisalabad being time barred vide his order dated 17.06.2013. Feeling still aggrieved, the appellant filed revision petition, which was rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore vide his order dated 12.11.2013. Hence, this appeal.
4. Careful scanning of the order dated 26.02.2013 would bring this fact on the surface that Superintendent District Jail, Shahpur removed the appellant from service on account of smuggling one cell phone with charger through Tea thermos bottle in Barrack No, 6 to a Convicted Prisoner Muhammad Tufail s/o Muhammad Yousaf.
5. The Superintendent District Jail, Shahpur after passing the order of Removal from service dated 26.02.2013 forwarded copy of the same to the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Faisalabad Region, Faisalabad for information, Temporary Warder Muhammad Ishaq s/o Allah Baksh Cha Khushi Wala Near Masjid Tehsil & District Jhang for information and District Account Office Sargodha for information.
6. Section-16 of PEEDA Act, 2006 deals with the filing of the departmental appeal and review. This section says that an accused who has been awarded any penalty under this Act may, except where the penalty has been imposed within the 30 days from the date of the communication of the order, prefer departmental appeal directly to the appellate authority.
7. Careful scanning of impugned order dated 26.02.2013 would bring this fact on the surface that the copy of the impugned order was delivered to the Temporary Warder Muhammad Ishaq s/o Allah Baksh Cha Khushi Wala Near Masjid Tehsil & District Jhang instead of the present appellant.
8. The departmental appellate authority while rejecting the departmental appeal on 17.06.2013 being time barred failed to consult the record of the department. Had the departmental appellate authority perused the complete record with respect to the communication of the impugned order in the light of Section 16 of the PEEDA Act, 2006, the departmental appeal could have been decided on merits rather than on the point of limitation.
9. Order passed by the departmental appellate authority dated 17.06.2013 is not complete/speaking as required under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, therefore cannot sustain
10. It is settle principle of law that where the authority rejected representation of civil servant without recording reasons for the rejection, the case is remanded to the departmental appellate authority for consideration of the representation of the civil servant on merits and decide the same by reasoned order. Reliance is placed on case titled Aslam 'Warraich and others vs. Secretary, Planning and Development Division and others reported in 1991 SCM R 2330.
11. In the light of what has been discussed above, the appeal is allowed/accepted and all the impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the departmental appellate authority for its decision afresh on merits.