' Briefly stated, appellant Muhammad Imran, Constable No, 409 of District Police Bahawalpur was proceeded on account of absence from duty for 15 days and was discharged from service under Police Rule 12.21 vide an order dated 17.12.2014 passed by DPO Bahawalpur. Said order was called in question through ddpartmental appeal preferred to RPO Bahawalpur but the same was not attended to, hence this appeal is filed on 16.03.2015. '
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant has 'not been given due process of law. Explained that he has been discharged from service as a result of disciplinary proceedings on account of willful absence from duty for 15 days. But instead of initiated the disciplinary proceedings under prevailing law i,e, Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 the punishing authority discharged the appellant from service under Police Rule 12.21. Therefore, he maintained that discharging the appellant from service under Police Rule 12.21 instead of proceedings him under prevailing law is nullity in the eye of law.
3. Conversely, the learned District Attorney opposed the merits of the case relying upon parawise comments and stated that penalty order is quite justified and in accordance with law.
4. Arguments head. Record perused.
5. It is surfaced that appellant has been discharged from service under Police Rule 12.21 on the allegation of absence from duty instead of proceedings him under the prevailing law. When a civil servant is charged for misconduct it is not proper to discharge him from service under Police Rule 12.21. He' should be given due process of hearing under the relevant provisions of law i,e, Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 to enable him to defend the charges leveled against him. Had proceedings been initiated under the said Rules, the appellant would have visible opportunity to produce his defence version. Due process of law and fair trial is the inalienable right of the appellant provided .Him by Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution of g Pakistan. With this backdrop, the penalty order is found nullity in the eye of law and as such is not sustainable.
6. Resultantly, this appeal is partially accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Appellant is reinstated into service. Case is remanded to the competent authority to initiate denovo proceedings under the relevant law. Fate of intervening period during which the appellant remained out of service shall depend upon the outcome of denovo proceedings.