Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was proceeded against departmentally under PEEDA Act, 2006 on the charge that an incident of motorcycle theft took place in the area of his jurisdiction on 6.9.2012. The matter was reported to him for registration of case but he was reluctant to take legal action. The appellant was served upon show-cause notice dated 07.09.2012 containing the above allegation and resultantly vide order dated 21.02.2013, he was awarded penalty of "Fine of Rs,5000/-" by DIG of Police, Operations, Lahore. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred departmental appeal before CCPO Lahore, who vide order dated 03.02.2014, rejected the same. Thereafter, the appellant filed revision petition before IGP Punjab, which was also rejected vide order dated 13.07.2015. These orders of the respondents have been assailed through the instant appeal.
2. Arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney have been heard. Contents of memorandum of appeal and parawise comments offered by the respondents have also been perused.
3. Besides raising various other objections against the impugned order of Respondent No, 3, the learned counsel for the appellant assailed the same on the ground of jurisdiction. He contended that DIG of Police, Operations, Lahore not being the appointing authority of the appellant had no competency to award him any punishment under PEEDA Act, 2006. That, under Article 23 of Police Order, 2002, CCPO Lahore being the appointing authority of the appellant, was competent to punish him under the Act ibid. The learned counsel contended that hence the impugned order is without jurisdiction and has been passed by an incompetent authority. With these assertions, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for acceptance of the instant appeal by setting aside the impugned orders.
4. The learned District Attorney has also been heard. He opposed the merits of the case, however, with regard to competency of Respondent No, 3 to award punishment to the appellant or otherwise, he could not controvert the contention of learned counsel for the appellant.
5. I have given due consideration to the arguments put forth by both the sides. It has been found that the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is justified. While Section 4 of PEEDA Act, 2006) allows only the 'competent authority' to impose penalty on an accused official, Section 2(f)(ii) thereof provides that in relation to any employee or group of employees any officer or authority authorized by the Chief Minister has to exercise the powers of competent authority under the Act ibid. Vide Notification No, SORI (S&GAD) 1-30/2003 dated 24.12.2006 of S&GAD Punjab, the appointing authorities in respect of employees of BS-01 to BS-18 of Attached Departments and Subordinate Offices of Govt. Of Punjab stand designated by the Chief Minister as competent authority in their 'respect in terms of Section 2(f)(ii) ibid. On the other side, under Article 23 of Police Order, 2002, heads of the District Police have been declared as appointing authority for junior ranks i,e, from constables to Inspectors. Thus, CCPO Lahore was the competent authority in respect of the appellant and as such DIG of Police, Operations, Lahore was not competent to award punishment to the appellant. However, I am of the view that remand of the case at this belated stage would be a futile exercise. Therefore, the instant appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside.
Disposed off.