1. SHOAIB SAEED, CHAIRMAN --- Briefly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant vide show-cause notice dated 12.7.2007 on account of guilty of gross misconduct/cheating, resultantly awarded major punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 25.8.2007 under PEEDA Act, 2006 passed by the Chief Traffic Officer, Lahore.
2. Appellant filed departmental appeal before the CCPO, Lahore which was rejected vide order dated 3.11.2007.
3. Aggrieved of the said order, appellant filed revision petition before the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore which was decided vide order dated 21.7.2009 while converting major penalty of dismissal from service into forfeiture of one year approved service.
4. After passage of two years respondent No. 1 or 21.2.2011 again issued show-cause notice on the same allegations.
5. Reply to the show-cause notice was submitted wherein the allegations alleged were vehemently denied.
6. Respondent No. 1 after affording opportunity of personal hearing, rescinded order dated 21.7.2009 regarding reinstatement in service vide order dated 21.2.2011 relying Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
7. Review petition against the impugned order dated 21.2.2011 before respondent No. 1 was filed which was filed having no merits vide order dated 2.3.2013. Hence, this appeal.
2. Arguments heard record perused.
3. Perusal of the show-cause notice dated 12.7.2007 and subsequent fresh show-cause notice issued on 21.2.2011 reveal that the charges/allegations levelled in both are same/identical.
8. The matter was already thoroughly probed/sifted earlier in which the appellate authority converted imposition of dismissal from service into forfeiture of one year approved service vide order dated 21.7.2009.
9. The issuance of fresh show-cause notice dated 21.2.2011 by respondent No. 2 was illegal/unlawful as on the same charges appellant cannot be vexed twice which is not permissible in law and it amounts to double jeopardy.
10. The re-opening of matter after passage of two years (decided by the appellate authority vide order dated 21.7.2009) in fact became a past and closed transaction.
11. That Section 17(1) of the PEEDA. Act, 2006 is reproduced as under:-- "The Chief Minister, Chief Secretary or the Administrative Secretary or any other appellate authority may call for the record of any proceedings within one year of the order of exoneration or imposition of a penalty, passed by the competent authority or the order of Appellate Authority, as the case may be, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such proceedings or order."
12. The authority for the purposes of satisfying as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, penalty or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such authority may call for and examine the record of any proceedings within one year.
13. The period lapsed on 21.7.2010, therefore fresh show- cause notice dated 21.2.2011 and as a consequence impugned order passed thereof were in violation of Section 17(1) of the Act ibid and cannot be sustained in law.
14. Learned District Attorney emphasized that the principle of Locus Poenitentiate was not applicable to illegal orders and relied upon judgment reported as 2005 SCM R 1040 & 2007 SCM R 1835.
15. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that order of rescindment of reinstatement in service of the appellant vide order dated 21.2.2011 was made under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which was a general law, whereas the order dated 21.7.2009 for reinstatement was passed under the PEEDA Act, 2006, the Act ibid is a special law, through various pronouncements by the Superior Courts it was held that special law prevails over the general law, therefore the order dated 21.2.2011 cannot be sustained in law.
4. In view of the facts discussed above, appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside.