1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was proceeded against departmentally under Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 on the charges reproduced as under: "You have been found involved in case FIR No. 215 dated - 21.9.2013 u/S. 302/324/148/149, PPC, PS City Jalalpur Jattan, which is objectionable. You have, brought bad name for, the department.
2. Being a public servant and member of disciplined force, your involvement in criminal case is misconduct on your part. You are also absent from official duty since 21.9.2013. A report to this effect was recorded vide D.D. Entry No. 10 dated 21.9.2013, in Police Lines Gujrat. Hence, this statement of all egations. "
3. The appellant was issued charge sheet and statement of allegations vide No. 12077/CS/PS dated 17,11.2015 containing the above allegations and resultantly vide Order No, 5309-11/PS dated 01.02.2014, he was awarded major penalty of "Dismissal from Service" by Respondent No. 2, i.e. DPO Gujrat. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred departmental appeal before Respondent No 1, i.e. RPO Gujranwala, who vide Order No. 6646-47/E-IV dated 26.02.2016, rejected the same being time- barred by 09 months & 16 days. These orders of the respondents have been assailed by the appellant by way of filing the instant appeal before this Tribunal on 17.03,2016.
2. Without going into detailed merits of the case, it has been surfaced from record that the appellate authority did not act in accordance with the settled principles of law and while rejecting the departmental appeal of the appellant on the point of limitation, did not mention the date of communication of impugned order dated 01.02.2014 to the appellant. The departmental appellate authority was under legal obligation to justify his action through a speaking order while discussing the mode of communication of impugned order to the appellant, specifically because limitation always runs from the date of communication and not from the date of passing of order. But a cursory look of the impugned appellate order dated 26.02.2016 reveals that the said order does not evince application of independent and judicious mind and the departmental appeal has been rejected on ,the point of limitation without ascertaining whether the same was time-barred in its literal sense, hence is not fovoured in the eyes of law. Although a report vide No. 4967/legal dated 14.03.2017 signed by DPO Gujrat has been submitted today by the departmental representative, wherein it has been substantiated that copy of impugned order dated 01.02.2014 was communicated to the nephew of the appellant namely Shahbaz Ahmad vide Parwana No. 356/0SI dated 04.02.2014, however communication to "nephew' is not provided anywhere in law. Therefore, communication of impugned order dated 01.02.2014 to the appellant does not stand established.
4. The appellate authority was legally bound to justify his verdict on the basis of record and reasons but he failed to do so. With, the backdrop, I find the appellate order dated 26.02,2016 to be violative of law and against the norms of natural justice and as such is not un-sustainable.
5. 3.Accordingly, the instant appeal is partially accepted and the order dated 26.02.2016 passed by the appellate authority, i.e RPO Gujranwala is hereby set aside with a direction to him to deicide the departmental appeal of the appellant afresh, which shall be deemed pending before him, strictly in accordance with law and giving reasons for his decision particularly on the point of limitation as well as on merits, through a speaking order preferably within a period of 60 days of receipt of this order. Disposed off.