' ASHTAR ABBAS, MEMBER-IlI. -- This judgment will decide an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974.
2. A thumbnail sketch as gleaned out from the instant service appeal are that appellant was appointed as Elementary School Teacher in BS-9 at Govt. High School, Jabal vide order dated 21.3.1996 issued by District Education Officer (SE-EE), Narowal, respondent No,
1. On 1.9.1996, appellant was. Adjusted at Govt. Elementary School, Supanwal and the appellant joined his new place of posting on 2.9.1996.
3. In June, 1997, the appellant was transferred to Govt. Elementary School, Gangohar and the appellant after having been relieved, reported at his new place of posting on 20.7.1997.
4. Till March, 1998, the appellant performed his duties diligently, but was restrained to perform his duties at Govt. Elementary School, Gongohar by Deputy District Education Officer (Male) Tehsil Narowal, deprived him from his emoluments without legal justification and ultimately ousted the appellant from service. For the redressal of grievance, the appellant submitted many complaints and ultimately filed Writ Petition No, 10553/2002 before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore, which was disposed of on 18.6.2002 and referred the matter to EDO (Education) to decide the same in 30 days.
5. Appellant was then allowed to resume his duty provisionally at Govt. High School Rayya Khas, Narowal by respondent-No, 1, who appointed Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad, Principal, Govt. High School, Kot Nainan Tehsil Shakargarh District Narowal as Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry against the appellant on the following charges:-
(i) The appointment order does not stand on merit.
(ii) Misconduct.
6. On failure to provide record to the Inquiry Officer, the Inquiry Officer returned the case to respondent No, 1, whereupon, the respondent No, 1 appointed Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Headmaster, Govt. High School, Bhajna Tehsil Shakargarh District Narowal vide his Order No, 4950/E-II(M), dated 7.12.2002 as Inquiry Officer. When no record was produced before the second Inquiry Officer, he submitted his report dated 18.2.2004 to respondent No, 1 with the following remarks:-- "In absence of inquiry filed record the action/punishment cannot be recommended against the accused."
7. Respondent No, 1 once again vide order dated 14.1.2010 appointed Mr. Sana Ullah Butt, Headmaster, Govt, High School, Rayya Khas as Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry against the appellant on the above-referred charge under the provisions of Section 5 read with Section 9 of the PEEDA Act, 2006.
8. The inquiry Officer initiated proceedings, recorded the statement of the appellant and after ,perusing the documents submitted his report dated 1.7.2010 to respondent No, 1 with the following recommendations:- "In view of the situation it is recommended that the instant disciplinary proceedings against the accused official may kindly be withdrawn and the accused by allowed to continue his service as usual."
9. As the proceedings against the appellant were riot culminated despite elapsing of about 2 years, the appellant again filed Writ Petition No, 457/2013 before Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore which was disposed of on 19.2.2013 whereby the matter was dispatched to respondent No, 2 to treat the petition as representation and decide the same after granting a hearing to the appellant by passing speaking order strictly in accordance with law from the receipt of the order.
10. On 30.3.2013, the representation of the appellant was rejected and the appellant was expelled from the department on an allegation that appellant was never appointed by the competent authority. Being aggrieved from order dated 30.3.2013, the appellant preferred departmental appeal before respondent No, 3 on 16.4.2013 but on no avail, hence this appeal.
11. Arguments heard. Record perused.
12. Scanning gingerly of the available record would bring this fact on the surface that appellant on the basis of appointment order dated 21.3.1996 used to serve on different places on posting as mentioned above and ultimately he was ousted from service. The appellant filed writ petitions before Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore detailed above and pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore, the department/respondents appointed three Inquiry Officers to operate inquiry proceedings against the present appellant on the following two charges:--
(I) The appointment order does not stand on merit.
(ii) Misconduct.
13. Careful scrutiny of order dated 14.1.2010, whereby Mr. Sana Ullah Butt, Headmaster, Govt. High School, Rayya Khas was appointed as Inquiry Officer would bring this fact on the surface that the Inquiry Officer was appointed keeping in view the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 to initiate inquiry proceedings against the present appellant. Inquiry Officer carried out the inquiry proceedings and ultimately submitted his report to District Education Officer (M-EE), Narowal vide Memo. No, 590/Enq., dated 1.7.2010 with the recommendations that instant disciplinary proceedings against the accused official be withdrawn and the accused be allowed to continue his service as usual as charge No, 1 did not prove against the present appellant whereas charge No, 2 i,e, misconduct was the off-shoot of charge No, 1.
14. As the departmental proceedings were initiated against the present appellant in the gleam of provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 and if the punishing authority was not satisfied with the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer, the punishing authority could have passed order in the light of the provisions of Section 13 of the PEEDA Act, 2006 for initiation of fresh inquiry against the present appellant. The available record does not show that the said authority opted to proceed against the present appellant in terms of Section 13 of the Act ibid but to the contrary, imposed major punishment, which was not provided in the said Act and expelled the appellant from department.
15. It is necessary to say that as the order dated 30.3.2013 whereby the appellant was expelled from service was passed by EDO (Edu.), Narowal and next higher authority in the situation was D.C.O., Narowal before whom the departmental appeal was addressed on 16.4.2013 vide postal receipt No,
689. DCO, Narowal did not take any action considering himself to be not the Departmental Appellate Authority (Para No, 14 of his reply is referred). As the basic order was not passed by the competent authority hence the same was void and nullity in the eye of law and no question of limitation would come in the way of appellant reliance is placed on 2014 SCMR 1189 and 2015 PLC (C.S) 151.
16. It is settled principle of law as laid down in case titled Saleh Muhammad Vs, WAPDA, reported in 1985 PLC (C.S) 478 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, hence impugned orders cannot sustain.
17. Keeping in view the above-referred illegalities, this appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and 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 (appointing 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 also be decided by the competent authority.
Be consigned.