1. ' Succinctly stated, the appellant Mehboob-ur-Rehman who was serving in the Education Department, Rahim Yar Khan as Naib Qasid posted at Government Elementary School Mud Bhoora Markaz had been proceeded against for his alleged willful absence from duty for a period 10.07.2014 to 21.08.2014 and 07.09.2014 till the issuance of show-cause notice and after proceedings under the provisions of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 he was removed from service by the orders of the Respondent No, 1 i,e, Deputy District Education Officer (EE-M), Tehsil Khanpur, District Rahim Yar Khan. He preferred a departmental appeal, which was allowed by the Respondent No, 2 who directed Respondent No, 1 to hold a denovo inquiry by fulfilling the codal formalities and pass fresh order under intimation to his office. The Respondent No, 1 in response to the appellate order sought review of the appellate order through a Letter No, DDEO/EEM/637/KPR dated 05.09.2015, which has been assailed in this appeal preferred under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 on the grounds of commission of excess of jurisdiction by the Respondent No, 1; passing a void and illegal order; flouting the order of the appellate authority and that the Respondent No, 1 failed to observe all codal formalities and the appellate authority has allowed the appeal but the Respondent No, 1 failed to comply with the same, hence same order is nullity in the eye of law and the appellant has recourse through this appeal which merits acceptance.
2. 2.The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Respondent No, 1 has not proceeded in the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the dictates of law; that after acceptance of the departmental appeal the Respondent No, 1 has disobeyed a lawful command and committed excess of jurisdiction and that the appeal merits acceptance as no regular inquiry was conducted but major penalty has been imposed upon the appellant.
3. 3.The learned District Attorney contrarily was of the view that holding of a regular inquiry is not necessary where facts are admitted. He relied upon the dictum reported as 2011 SCMR 534. He referred to the three show-cause notices of different lapses issued to the appellant and submitted that in entire service he either remained absent or on leave and he is not a serious servant to be retained in government service. He defended the order of Respondent No, 1 in above terms and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
4. 4.I have heard the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the record. The Respondent No, 1 after acceptance of departmental appeal vide order dated 04.08.2015 of Respondent No, 2 had addressed a letter Bearing No, DDEO/EEM/637/KPR dated 05.09.2015 suggesting appellate authority to review appellate order of the accused in the light of Section 16(2) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, which aims at pointing out the limits of the appellate authority while deciding the departmental appeal. The Respondent No, 1 had referred to the provisions of Section 16(2) clauses (b)&(c), but he had failed to refer the other clauses i,e, clauses (a) and (d) of Section 16(2) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. For the facility of reference the relevant provisions of Section 16(2) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 are reproduced hereunder: -- "16. Departmental appeal and review.--(1) an accused who has been awarded any penalty under this Act may, except where the penalty has been imposed by the Chief Minister, within thirty days from the date of communication of the order, prefer departmental appeal directly to the appellate authority: ' Provided that where the order has been passed by the Chief Minister, the accused may, within the aforesaid period, submit a review petition directly to the Chief Minister.
(2) The authority empowered under sub-section (1) shall call for the record of the case and comments on the points raised in the appeal from the concerned department or office, and on consideration of the appeal or the review petition, as the case may be, by any order in writing-- (a)uphold the order of penalty and reject the appeal or review petition; or (b)set aside the orders and exonerate the accused; or (c)modify the orders and reduce or enhance the penalty; or (d)set aside the order of penalty and remand the case to the competent authority, where it is satisfied that the proceedings by the competent authority or the enquiry officer or inquiry committee, as the case may, have not been conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or the facts and merits of the case have been ignored, with the directions to either hold a de novo inquiry or to rectify the procedural lapses or irregularities in the proceedings.
5. ' Provided that where the appellate or review authority proposes to enhance the penalty, it shall by an order in writing-- (i)inform the accused of the action proposed to be taken against him and the grounds of such action; and (ii)give him a reasonable opportunity to show-cause against the action and afford him an opportunity f personal hearing either itself or through a hearing officer: provided that the hearing officer shall only be appointed where the appellate or the review authority is of the rank of Secretary to the Government of the Punjab or above,"
6. ' The Respondent No, 1 has in fact tried to prevail upon the order of the appellate authority which was passed quite in accordance with law because the Respondent No, 1 had transgressed his limits by ignoring the mandate of law requiring holding of regular inquiry where the major punishment of removal from service was proposed and finally imposed it upon the present appellant. The Respondent No, 2 had pointed out all such lapses and mandatory requirements of law in his order dated 04.08.2015 conveyed through endorsement No, 4271/CC dated 05.08.2015 but to no avail of the Respondent No, 1 who bitterly failed to exercise his jurisdiction well within the confines of law. A civil servant is never to be treated as a chattel. Even if any disciplinary proceedings are initiated on the basis' of any breach of discipline, misconduct or any other irregularity, the same should be completely in conformity to the prevalent law of the land and not motivated by personal whims and caprices of the higher authorities.
5. The Respondent No, 2 had acted in accordance with the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, particularly, clause (d) of the section ibid. There is no cavil to the proposition of law fully settled by the Hon'ble apex Court in Muhammad lqbal's case reported as 2011 SCMR 534 that criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings can simultaneously run irrespective of fate of the criminal case and the vice versa but the reliance of the learned District Attorney in present case is of no avail because of denial of 'material allegations forming factual controversy, which could only be determined by holding regular inquiry into the matter. The Hon'ble apex Court has observed in number of cases that where major penalty is to be imposed upon official and. where such official in response to the show-cause notice has denied such charges or he/ she has taken a plea requiring factual determination, holding of regular inquiry in such matters is a legal necessity and not mere a formality as per law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in number of reported judgments like Lal Muhammad and another 1980 SCMR 850, Province of the Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab and another vs. Muhammad Siddique Khan 2000 SCMR 1321, Shakeel Ahmad vs. Punjab Police, Lahore & others 2007 SCMR 192, Muhammad Haleem and another vs. General Manager (Operation) Pakistan Railways Headquarter, Lahore and others 2009 SCMR 339 and IGP Punjab vs. Tariq Mahmood 2015 PLC (C.S) 366.
7. 6.So the supervising authority was under legal obligation to have observed all such codal formalities by affording right of hearing and right of defence to the present appellant who had taken particular plea in response to the show-cause notice that he had become ill and his family was living in Karachi where he went for medical treatment. Such a plea should have been enquired into by the Respondent No, 1 by conducting a regular inquiry before imposing such major penalty.
8. The Respondent No, 1 not only acted in complete disregard of the prevalent law on the subject, rather he also transgressed his limits by disobeying the orders of the appellate authority i,e, Respondent No, 2 and in this way he has made himself liable for breach of discipline as well. The civil servant should not only have respect for seniors, rather he should also have respect for command of higher authorities, particularly, when such a command is embedded with the force of law as otherwise the discipline in service would stand compromised. Civil service is backbone of state machinery, which regularizes and facilitates activities of citizens of the state and in turn promotes wellbeing of society at large. The derogation from cherished course of good conduct and disorder in the service can only yield chaos in society, which must be deprecated with full force.
9. 7.For the reasons recorded above, the instant appeal merits acceptance, which is accepted and the impugned orders dated 17.12.2014 and 05.09.2015 are hereby set aside and appellant would stand reinstated into service. The case is remanded to the competent authority to conduct a regular inquiry where right of hearing and right of defence be granted to both the parties. Fate of intervening period would depend upon the outcome of denovo proceedings. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.