' This judgment will decide an appeal filed by the present appellant under the provisions of Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. Deputy Inspector General of Police/CTO, Capital City District Lahore issued show-cause notice to the present appellant as follows:-- "On 15.12.2009, motorcycle Honda 70 No, SLP/4854 of TW Muhammad Ashraf was stolen from LOS Police Lines and case FIR No, 1001/09 under Section 381/A was registered at P.S. Chung. Later on, the stolen motorcycle was recovered from you during a "Naka" held by AMCLS at Pattoki on 12.01.2010, having fake registration No, LZP/5052 under police colour.
' An inquiry into the matter was conducted by STO/Saddar who held you guilty of criminal misconduct on the following counts:--
1. The stolen motorcycle was recovered from you at the said "Naka" by affixing fake number plate under police colour.
' In your written statement during inquiry proceedings, you mentioned a concocted story that on 10.1.2010, you challaned this motorcycle and the violator left motorcycle to bring its documents and did not turn back. Thereafter, a message was received about illness of your mother and you had to go on the said motorcycle. He added that on 11.1.2010,-'he was on leave and the next day (12.2.2010) while going to impound the motorcycle, was checked up at the Naka. This was all a concocted story as you were present on duty on 11.1.2010.
' You with the intent to shroud your criminal misconduct, prepared forged challan ticket No, 48.
4. In addition to that you were found hand and gloves with ASI Muhammad Arif of A'MCLS to conceal the real facts about recovery of motorcycle from your possession.
' Furthermore, an inquiry report conducted by SP/CRO/ Computerization, Lahore received from DIG/Investigation Lahore also held you guilty of the same charges.
' All this speaks about your criminal misconduct, mala fide intention and dishonesty with your profession that tantamount to grave misconduct warranting departmetal action against you."
4. The appellant gave its reply and after perusing the same DIG Police, Traffic Capital City District Lahore vide his order dated 23.11.2010 imposed major penalty of dismissal from service against the present appellant under the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006. Against this order, departmental appeal was filed, which was rejected on 11.02.2011, whereby order of the punishing authority was upheld.
Being aggrieved, the "appellant filed revision petition before the Inspector General of Police Punjab Lahore, which was decided on 19.07.2011, by Addl. Inspector General of Police Punjab Lahore, whereby the appellant was temporarily reinstated in service and in order to meet the ends of justice, the CCPO Lahore was directed to initiate denovo proceedings.
5. Pursuant to the order dated 19.07.2011, Capital City Police Officer Lahore vide his Order No, 8557/AC dated 29.07.2011 appointed Chief Traffic Officer Lahore as an inquiry officer to Conduct denovo proceedings/inquiry. Pursuant to order dated 29.07.2011, Chief Traffic Officer Lahore carried out inquiry proceedings and ultimately submitted his report to CCPO Lahore holding the appellant guilty and recommended for awarding of major punishment upon the appellant under the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006.
6. CO PO Lahore after perusing the inquiry report as well as record, awarded punishment of dismissal from service against the present appellant vide order dated 13.03.2012. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed service appeal Bearing No, 1531/2012, which was converted into departmental appeal and transmitted to IGP for decision as per law within a period of 90 days. Pursuant to direction of this Tribunal, Addl. Inspector General of Police Punjab Lahore rejected the departmental appeal of the appellant vide order dated 15.07.2013. Hence this appeal.
7. Record reflects that Chief Traffic Officer Lahore during the inquiry proceedings recorded statements of 5 prosecution witnesses but appellant was not allowed to put cross-examination on them. The inquiry officer while conducting the inquiry proceeding failed to keep in his mind the pellucid provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006. i,e, Sections 10 & 11, wherein the law has provided guidelines to the inquiry officer to carry out the inquiry proceedings. It is well settled law that when the inquiry officer failed to conduct inquiry proceedings in the light of pellucid provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006, said inquiry would lost its legal value. Reliance is placed on the dictum of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court Lahore rendered in Writ Petition No, 3853-2010 titled Kouser M. Faiz Vs. DPO Sialkot.
8. It would be appropriate to point out that earlier the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while deciding Civil Petition No, 403-L of 2013 titled Raheel Khurshid Vs. CCPO Lahore etc observed as under:-- "3. Having heard petitioner at some length, we direct learned Additional Advocate General as to whether the Senior Traffic Officer who passed the order was competent under th rules to proceed against the petitioner and whether the sail officer considered the medical certificate to which reference ha been made by petitioner. Having sought instructions from the Department learned Additional Advocate General has appeared to submit that the Senior Traffic Officer was not competent to proceed against the petitioner and that the competent writ in this regard was the Chief Traffic Officer. On that score, o Court query, he further conceded that the order passed again.. The petitioner was without jurisdiction. With regard to the medical certificate he in all fairness admitted that the sail certificate was not considered, if it was produced.
4. Having examined the matter and in view of the fair stand taken by learned Law Officer, we find that the order passed b the Senior Traffic Officer on the face of it was without jurisdiction and on the score void. The learned Service Tribunal while dismissing the appeal did not advert to this aspect at all."
9. Keeping in view the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, prima facie, in my humble view the DIG/Police/CTI lawfully issued Show Cause Notice No, 354/PA dated 16.03.2010 but instead of remanding the case to the competent authority, Add Inspector General of Police Punjab Lahore referred the matter CCPO Lahore for initiating denovo proceedings against the appellant which seemed preposterous and not in line with the guideline given I the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as mentioned above. TI mechanism which was adopted by Respondents No, 1 & 3 was alien law and can not sustain.
10. For what has been discussed above, impugned orders date 13.03.2012 and 15.07.2013 passed by Respondents No, 3 & respectively are set aside, appellant' is reinstated in service with immediate effect. The period he remained out of service shall treated as leave of the kind due. The competent authority however would be at liberty to initiate denovo proceedings against the present appellant if the same has limpid incriminating evidence against the present appellant. Be consigned.