' Briefly stated the facts of the case are that while working as Constable at Police Station Garh, District Faisalabad, the appellant was proceeded against departmentally under PEEDA Act, 2006 on the charge of willful absence from duty for 130 days. Resultantly, vide order dated 04.02.2010, SP Sadar, Faisalabad awarded the appellant penalty of dismissal from service. After exhausting departmental remedies, the appellant filed service Appeal No, 4137/2012 before Punjab Service Tribunal, which was decided vide order dated 14.11.2012 in the following manner: "This appeal is, therefore, partially accepted. The impugned orders are set aside. The appellant is reinstated into service and the case is remanded to the competent authority i,e, City Police Officer, Faisalabad to initiate denovo proceedings against the appellant. Fate of the intervening period will depend upon the outcome of the denovo proceedings,"
' Consequently, the Respondent No, 2/CPO Faisalabad appointed SP/Admin Faisalabad as enquiry officer to conduct a regular inquiry against the appellant. The inquiry officer held the appellant guilty of the charges and recommended major penalty of compulsory retirement from service.
However, the competent authority/CPO Faisalabad, vide impugned order dated 22.06.2015, awarded the appellant major penalty of dismissal from service. Said order was called in question through departmental appeal preferred to RPO Faisalabad, which was accepted partially vide impugned order dated 22.06.2015 and the penalty of dismissal from service was converted into compulsory retirement from service. Hence, this service appeal is filed on 14.07.2015.
2. Record as produced by the department, memorandum of appeal alongwith its annexures and comments of the respondents were perused. Arguments heard from both the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that impugned orders are against law and facts of the case. He explained that infact wife of the appellant became seriously sick and there was no other male, member at home to lookafter her except the appellant. The 4pellant informed the concerned Moharrar accordingly and remained busy in the treatment of his ailing wife. Learned counsel further contended that on the direction of this Tribunal though an inquiry was conducted, but in an arbitrary manner. According to him neither any charge sheet was issued to the appellant nor statements of any witnesses were recorded in presence of the appellant. Added that neither any record with regard to absence was confronted to him nor the version of the appellant was given proper consideration. He argued that period of absence and suspension were not decided which were mandatory from legal as well as audit point of view. Therefore learned counsel maintained that such like inquiry is highly insufficient to award even a minor penalty and the impugned orders based on such like inquiry are liable to be set aside.
4. Learned District Attorney on the other hand maintained that the penalty has rightly been awarded by the competent authority. Contended that to meet the ends . Of justice and to Above him ;fair opportunity to defend himself a regular inquiry was conducted, where the absence for 130 days was proved as willful.
5. Patient hearing was given to both the parties and record was perused minutely. Precisely the allegations against the appellant is that he remained absent from duty willfully for 130 days. On this allegation the competent authority was directed by this Tribunal vide order dated 14.11.2012 to conduct a t-landed inquiry. SP Sadar Division, Faisalabad was appointed as inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted the inquiry and submitted report declaring the appellant guilty of the charges. I have gone through the record which speaks that Appellant in his defence reply submitted that he as not absent from duty willfully rather it happened due to sickness of his wife, resultantly he remained busy in her treatment. It is also evident from penalty order dated 03.07.2014, passed by CPO Faisalabad that during inquiry proceedings the appellant produced medical certificate in respect of sickness of his wife. Though it belongs to a private hospital, but even then genuineness of the same should have been verified to reach at a just conclusion.
6. During course of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant it was specifically stated that proper opportunity of defence was not provided to the appellant. Be that as it may the departmental record shows that the inquiry officer did not take into consideration the version of the appellant and without knowing the truthfulness of his stance held him guilty in an arbitrary manner, which is against legal norms and against principles of natural justice. The record is also silent with regard to affording opportunity of cross-examination to the appellant or otherwise. Whereas according to learned counsel for the appellant no opportunity of cross- examination was given to the appellant. With this backdrop it is established that the inquiry was conducted in derogation of settled norms of holding inquiries under law. The style and manner in which the regular inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer has eroded the very purpose of inquiry. The inquiry officer could not ascertain whether the appellant was infect under circumstantial stress and was unable to join his duties or otherwise. The departmental authorities also remained heedless in this regard.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and 'the case is remanded to the competent authority for denovo regular inquiry with the direction that after appointment of a new inquiry officer and providing an opportunity of cross-examination and self defence to the appellant the controversy be decided afresh. Resultantly the appellant is reinstated into service and the nature of intervening period shall depend upon the outcome of the inquiry proceedings.