The appellant Sajid Ali Constable No. .6378/C of Punjab Highway Patrol Khushab was proceeded against on account of absence from duty for 07 hours and 55 minutes between the night of 23/24.11.2012 and was awarded penalty of forfeiture of approved service for the period of two years by SP, PHP, Sargodha vide impugned order dated 13.12.2012. However, on appeal the DIG Police, PHP Lahore converted the said penalty into withholding of increment for one year vide impugned order dated 07.06.2013, hence this appeal is filed on 18.07.2013.
2. According to learned counsel, the appellant was not proceeded against in accordance with law as neither any charge sheet nor any show-cause notice was issued nor there is any mention in the impugned order dated 13.12.2012 about the Act under which the appellant was proceeded. Further contends that even otherwise the charge of absence is ambiguous as the appellant never remained absent from duty rather he left the Police Post when his duty time was over. He stated that if a show-cause notice is issued to the appellant, he would have in a position to rebut the allegations, but the punishing authority without issuing show-cause notice just relied upon the report of Incharge Post and awarded the impugned penalty.
3. Conversely, the learned District Attorney opposed the contentions and maintained that as per report of Incharge PHP Mangowal, Khushab, appellant was found absent from duty and as such was punished rightly.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. It is settled principle that when law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner it must be done in that manner and not otherwise, but in this case this very principle has been violated as appellant was neither served with any show-cause notice nor any charge sheet was issued and the competent authority without mentioning any specific provision of law awarded the appellant penalty of forfeiture of approved service for the period of two years on 13.12.2012. Whereas, the appellate authority in his order dated 07.06.2013 stated that appellant was awarded said penalty under PEEDA Act, 2006, however PEEDA Act, 2006 was not applicable at that time. When this ground was agitated in the instant appeal, the punishing authority in his comments gave evasive reply that he was competent either to award penalty under PEEDA Act, 2006 or in Punjab Police E&D Rules, 1975, but did not stated under which law he initiated proceedings against the appellant. The departmental authorities are bound to decide the cases of civil servants, under specific provisions of law, which is applicable during the days when any misconduct was committed and no authority has arbitrary powers to award punishment to any employee under the law or rules of his own choice. Further the appellant before the appellate authority give specific reply regarding the charge of absence for some hours, but the appellate authority also failed to appreciate the contention of the appellant and instead of discussing the appellant's version reduced the quantum of penalty finding the appellant's version not plausible. What was the appellant's version before the appellate authority and how it was not found plausible is not known from the order. With this backdrop, I find that the impugned orders nullity in the eye of law and are set aside being not sustainable and the appeal in hand is allowed.