' Through this appeal, appellant has challenged orders dated 25.07.2012 and 28.02.2014 whereby punishment of forfeiture of past service for the period of six months was imposed upon the present appellant on the allegation of keeping during night abductee Nadran Bibi in Police Station instead of women police station Race Course Lahore.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Pursuant to show-cause notices dated 21.06.2012, the appellant was awarded punishment of forfeiture of past service for the period of six months under the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 vide order dated 25.07.2012. Against this order, departmental appeal, was filed, which was rejected by Respondent No, 2 being time barred for 09 months and 15 days vide his order dated 28.02.2014.
Hence this appeal.
4. Careful scanning of the basic order dated 25.07.2012 would bring this fact on the surface that the said order was not passed by the competent authority and on his behalf, somebody passed an order, whereby punishment of dismissal from service was awarded against the present appellant.
5. It is settled principle of law that whenever a penal order was to be passed, the same was to be passed by the competent authority and not by his subordinate or even with the approval of the competent authority. Reliance is placed on PM 2012 Tr.C. (Services) 165.
6. It is also settled principle of law that a delegate can not further delegate his powers to any other person. In the instant case, the competent authority, CCPO Lahore was a delegate and he could not have delegated his powers to any of his subordinate or authorized somebody else on his behalf to inflict major punishment against the present appellant. The departmental appellate authority failed to note this crucial and important aspect of the case and rejected the departmental appeal in an arbitrary manner.
7. It is corollary of law that when basic order is passed by an incompetent authority, period of limitation would not come in the way of the aggrieved person. Reliance is placed on 2014 SCMR 1159 and 2015 PLC (C.S)151.
8. It is also established from the record that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant by Superintendent of Police, Investigation Sadar Division, Lahore vide show-cause notice dated 21.06.2012, whereas, he was not competent to do so, under the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 as explained in Section 5(2) of the PEEDA Act, 2006 which is reproduced as under:-- '
"The orders of inquiry or the show-cause notice, as the case may be, shall be signed by the competent authority; provided that where the Chief Minister is the competent authority, the same shall be signed by such officer as may be authorized by him in this behalf "
According to the above" referred provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 only the competent authority was authorized to issue show-cause notice to the appellant.
9. It is settled principle of law that when initial order or act relating to initiation of proceedings was contrary to law and illegal, then all subsequent proceedings and action taken thereon would have no basis and would fall down. Reliance is placed on 2009 SCMR 339.
10. In view of what has .Been discussed above, this appeal is allowed and all the impugned orders are set aside. However keeping in view the seriousness of the matter, the case is remanded to the competent authority for denovo proceedings and disposal of the same strictly in accordance with law. This Tribunal has eschewed itself from touching the merits of the case so that it may not prejudice the wisdom of the competent authority.