' Brief facts of the case are that, the CPO Faisalabad/ Respondent No, 1, while perusing the documents against the appellant dismissed him from sekrice, by way of summary police proceedings on the allegations that the inquiry was conducted through SP/Admn: & Security, Faisalabad which reveals that the allegations against him were based on facts and FIR was registered against him. The allegations against the appellant was that one Mr. Abdul Majeed S/o Hafiz Abdul Hameed R/o Saman Abad has submitted an application leveling serious allegations regarding his involvement in abhorring/anti-social and his involvement in criminal activities like running of gambling den at his residence situated in D-Type Colony. His departmental appeal was rejected by RPO Faisalabad on 10.06.2015, hence this appeal.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. It is evident, from the impugned orders dated 12.08.2014 as passed by Respondent No, 1/CPO Faisalabad and order dated 10.06.2015 passed by RPO Faisalabad in the capacity of appellate authority, that no show cause notice was issued to the appellant. Likewise, neither the order of inquiry nor the statement of allegations was issued to the appellant and he was dismissed from service on account of some inquiries conducted through SP/Admn: & Security, Faisalabad. The comments as offered by respondents also did not speak about adopting the shorter procedure by way of show cause notice or conducting the regular inquiry. Even, it is not mentioned by which order the inquiry officer was appointed to probe into the allegations. It appears from the recital of the impugned order dated 12.08.2014, that the CPO Faisalabad adopted the summary procedure in view of Rule 6 of Punjab Police (E&D), Rules 1975. The Rule 6 (ibid) prescribed the procedure of punishments such as:-
(a) Summary procedure
(b) General Police Proceedings
(c) Special police Proceedings.
4. In view of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 6, there is restriction upon the authority regarding the infliction of punishments. According to this rule, if the authority found the explanation of the accused officer unsatisfactory, he may award one of the minor punishment mentioned in the rules but the CPO Faisalabad in clear violation of Rules 6(ii) (ibid) punished the appellant with major penalty of dismissal from service.
5. It is a settled principle of law that for resolving controversial questions of fact, evidence has to be recorded, in that opportunity of cross-examination is to be provided to both the parties and for that proper course would be to hold full fledge inquiry. Otherwise the findings recorded will be based more on conjectures than on evidence. Reliance is placed on 1993 SCMR 603 tiled as Alam Gir vs. DFO, Multan, etc.
6. In Naseeb Khan's case 2009 PLC (CS) 19 in para 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held that in case of imposing major penalty, the principle of natural justice requires that a regular inquiry is to be conducted in the matter and opportunity of defence is to be provided to the civil servant proceeded. But in the case in hand, the respondents failed to adopt the proper procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal is allowed/accepted, all the impugned orders are set aside and the appellant is reinstated in service with immediate effect. Keeping in view the of the matter, the case is remanded to the competent authority for de novo proceedings and disposal of the same strictly in accordance with law. The nature of intervening period shall depend upon the outcome of denovo proceedings. This Tribunal has shunned itself from touching the merits of the case, so that it may not prejudice the wisdom of the competent authority.
' The relevant staff of this Tribunal in view of Rule 21 of the Punjab Service Tribunal (Procedure)
Rules,1975 is directed to furnish/sent the copy of this Judgment to the competent authority within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order in the concerned branch.