' This judgment will decide an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Deputy Director Nursing Punjab, Lahore vide order dated 25.04.2009 by invoking the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 awarded the punishment of "Termination from Service" against the present appellant on account of his absence from duty w.e.f 22.12.2007.
Against this order, departmental appeal was filed before the Secretary Govt. Of the Punjab Health Department Punjab Civil Secretariat, Lahore on 26.04.2013, which is still pending despite expiry of the statutory period. Hence, this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order is against law, facts and have been passed on the basis of no incriminating material; services of the appellant were terminated but said penalty of termination was alien to the PEEDA Act, 2006; material controversy was involved in the instant case, but no regular departmental inquiry was conducted; impugned penalty awarded to the appellant is very harsh; absence of the appellant was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the compelling circumstances; impugned order is against the principal of natural justice as same was passed without hearing the appellant. Learned counsel prayed that impugned order dated 25.04.2009 may kindly be set aside, appeal may kindly be accepted by reinstating the appellant into service with all back benefits.
4. Conversely, learned District Attorney vehemently opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and placed his reliance on the parawise comments submitted by the department. Learned D.A. Prayed that as the appeal is meritless, it be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Perusal of the order dated 25.04.2009 would bring this fact on the surface that the major penalty of termination from service has been inflicted . Upon the present appellant with retrospective effect which is not warranted by law.
7. It is settle principle of law that administrative action/orders shall take effect from a prospective date and not retrospectively. Reliance is placed on 1985 SCMR 1178 titled Noor Muhammad vs. The Member Election Commission, Punjab and 2006 PLC (C.S) 766 titled Bashir Ahmed Shaikh vs. Chairman, Port Qasim Authority Karachi etc.
8. Careful scanning of order dated 25.04.2009 would show in an unequivocal terms that appellant was terminated from service but the said penalty of termination from service was alien to the PEEDA Act, 2006 as major penalty had been prescribed as dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement from service, hence the impugned order cannot sustain.
9. It is settled principal of law as laid down in case titled Saleh Muhammad vs. WAPDA reported in 1985 PLC (C.S) 478 and case titled Sajjad Hussain vs. Administrative Judge, Peshawar, High Court reported in 2011 PLC (C.S) 1079 that penalty which is not prescribed in the relevant law cannot be imposed and the impugned order carrying on such penalty are vague and nullity in the eye of law.
10. Keeping in view the above referred illegalities, the impugned order is set aside, the appellant is reinstated in service with immediate effect. However, keeping in view the seriousness of the issue, the matter in hand is remanded to the competent-authority for de novo proceedings and disposal of the same 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. Intervening period shall be decided by the competent authority.