' Ashtar Abbas, Member--This judgment will decide an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974.
2.Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to show-cause notice dated 19.05.2012, Superintendent Central Jail Faisalabad by invoking the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 dismissed the appellant from service on an allegation of fraudulently attesting wakalatnama on behalf of Deputy Superintendent Judicial by using his seal which was lost four months ago and took bribe of Rs, 100/-, which was recovered from his iron box. Departmental appeal was filed against the said order, which was rejected by D.I.G Prisons Faisalabad Region, Faisalabad vide order dated 13.09.2012.
3. Thereafter, revision petition was filed, whereby Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab Lahore in order to dig out the truth, appointed Superintendent, B.I. & J. Jail, Faisalabad as inquiry officer to conduct inquiry. The inquiry officer after conducting the inquiry submitted his report and perusing the report as well as record, Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab Lahore rejected the revision petition, hence this appeal.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The inquiry conducted by Superintendent, B.I. & J. Jail, Faisalabad against the appellant available on the record is a fact finding enquiry. Case property i.e power of attorney, stamp/seal and 100/- Rupee note, were not produced during the inquiry proceedings. The inquiry officer observed as follows:-- ' "In the light of instant enquiry it stands proved that there is no witness of search and recovery in this regard. The case property was also not exhibited with the case file and inspite of having very much comprehensive information, could not find/ recover alleged amount and the seal too. It is pertinent to mention that specimen signature obtained from alleged official at the time of his enquiry could not commensurate with/matched with those signature which was affixed on the power of attorney, hence the charge against the official is not proved and likely to be acquittal. "
6.It is well settled that when case property is not produced, the civil servant cannot be penalized on the basis of alleged allegation. Reliance is placed on PU 1997 SC 484 titled Mls. Siemens Pakistan Engineering Company Ltd. Karachi Vs. Shahzad Saleem etc.
7. During the course of arguments, learned DDA placed on record photocopy of the statement of the appellant showing that appellant himself made confession before the authority, hence he was rightly imposed the punishment impugned.
8. In this regard, it is to say that when the authority got the said statement from the appellant he was not informed the consequences of the said statement that it could be used as evidence against him. Mere putting signature on the paper cannot taken as voluntary confession. Needless to add that admission could be relevant but not conclusive proof of fact which could be proved to be incorrect or have been made erroneously. I am fortified in my view from the case law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan titled. Manager State Bank of Pakistan etc Vs. Ch. Mohammad Ikram etc. Reported in 1999 PLC (C.S) 1558.
9. It is settled principle of law that no punishment can be given on the basis of fact finding or summary inquiry, reliance is placed on PLJ 2011 TRC (Services) page No, 12 and PLJ 1997 S.C.1353.
10. It is also settled principle of law that for resolving controversial questions of fact, evidence has to be recorded, in that opportunity of cross-examination is to be provided to both the parties and for that proper course would be to hold full fledge inquiry. Otherwise the finding recorded will be based more on conjectures than on evidence. Reliance is placed on 1993 SCMR 603 tiled as Alam Gir vs. DFO, Multan, etc.
11. In view of what has been discussed above, without touching the merits of the case, this appeal is allowed/accepted, impugned orders are set aside and the appellant is reinstated in service with immediate effect. 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. Intervening period shall also be decided by the competent authority.