' Briefly stated the appellant Sajjad Hussain, Constable Mechanic No, 469 of Motor Transport Wing of Punjab Police was proceeded against departmentally under PEEDA Act, 2006 on account of involvement in case FIR No, 48/11 as well as absence from duty w.e.f 30.09.2011 onward. An inquiry was conducted and on receipt of inquiry report the final show-cause notice dated 15.12.2011 was issued to the appellant and thereafter SSP, Motor Punjab, Lahore passed impugned order dated 03.01.2012 awarding the appellant major penalty of dismissal from service. Said order was called in question through departmental appeal preferred to DIG Police, Telecommunication and Transport, Punjab Lahore, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 28.06.2013, hence this appeal filed on 25.07.2013.
2. According to learned counsel for the appellant the appellant was proceeded against on the charge of involvement in a criminal case FIR No, 48/11 dated 01.08.2011 u/S. 161, PPC and 5-2/47 PCA Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment Circle Faisalabad as well as on the charge of absence from duty. Submits that in the above said criminal case the appellant has been exonerated by the Investigating Officer and as such the Assistant Director (Complaints), Anti Corruption Establishment, Faisalabad Region approved to drop the inquiry against the appellant. Therefore, learned counsel maintained that since the appellant has been discharged from the criminal case, therefore he is entitled to be reinstated into service. So far as the charge of absence is concerned learned counsel submits that appellant was not absent from duty willfully rather due to compelling circumstances i.e, his sickness. He argued that even otherwise the inquiry proceedings referred in the impugned orders are not in the knowledge of the appellant as he was not served with any notice by the inquiry officer or any notice by the punishing authority and as such a serious miscarriage of justice has been carried out.
3. The learned District Attorney opposed the merits of the case relying upon paradise comments submitted by the respondents and maintained that both the impugned orders are just and liable to be upheld.
4. After detailed appreciation of the facts I am not in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant was charged regarding involvement in a criminal case and he has been discharged by the Investigating Officer, the punishment, is no more sustainable because there is series of judgments of the apex Court on the law that disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are quite distinct to each other having altogether different characteristics and there is nothing always common between the adjudicative forums by whom separate prescribed procedure and mechanism is followed for adjudication and both the forums in ordinary circumstances have their own domain of jurisdiction. The decision of one forum would have no bearing on the decision of other forum.
5. On other side it is also well settled law that prosecution is required to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt and on its own legs. But in the present case, the department failed to prove its case adequately. The penalty order is devoid of. Any substance because the punishing authority without ensuring service of notices with regard to inquiry proceedings as well as final show-cause notices awarded him major penalty of dismissal from service in ex-part manner Further the inquiry proceedings conducted in the matter are found in contravention with the principal set down in the enactment, where without resolving factual controversies the appellant has been held guilty of the charges. The penalty order is silent about the oral or documentary evidence, which was considered to substantiate the allegations as leveled against the appellant. Therefore the inquiry proceedings being based on whims are not sustainable in the eye of law particularly when some necessary aspects like service of notices to the appellant and transparency at each and every step have been overlooked. In this way the appellant has been condemned unheard without affording him opportunity of fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
6. In view of the above this appeal is partially allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the competent authority to hold a regular inquiry in accordance with law.
Resultantly, the appellant is reinstated into service. Fate of intervening period during which the appellant remained out of service will depend upon the outcome of denovo proceedings.
(R.A.) .