' KHALID MAHMOOD RAMAY.--- Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant Naveed Shah, Constable No,2601/6375 of District Police Faisalabad while posted as Moharrar at CIA Staff Tariqabad was proceeded against departmentally under PEEDA Act, 2006 by way of show cause notice dated 03.08.2012, carrying following allegations against him:- "DSP Organized Crime Faisalabad made a special report that on 07.05.2012, T/ASI Muhammad Shahid arrested drug peddler namely Sohail Ahmad s/o Ghulam Muhammad r/o Chak No,188- RB (Lakar Wala) PS Chak Jhumra red handed and recovered heroin 375 grams from his possession.
T/ASI brought the accused at CIA Staff Tariqabad and released him without any legal action. He has been found guilty to the extent that T/ ASI conducted a raid without bringing the same into the notice of his In-charge Inspector Muhammad Asif No,F/423 and used private vehicle.
' In order to meet the ends of justice, RPO Faisalabad appointed DPO Chiniot as enquiry officer to conduct a discreet regular enquiry and submit report based on facts. The enquiry officer conducted a thorough enquiry by associating the real facts. The Enquiry Officer held him guilty that he neither informed the incharge CIA Staff Tariqabad for detention of accused Sohail nor about the release of Sohail from the lockup of CIA Staff Tariqabad.
' During inquiry, it come to light that no one can be confined or released from lockup without approval/ permission in this regard. Inspector Muhammad Asif rather released the accused on the request of T/ASI Muhammad Shahid."
' On the basis of a fact finding inquiry conducted by DPO Chiniot, the CPO Faisalabad, vide order dated 05.10.2012, awarded the appellant major penalty of dismissal from service, against which his departmental appeal was rejected by RPO Faisalabad on 22.03.2013. Thereafter, the appellant preferred revision petition to IGP Punjab, Lahore who, vide order dated 12.07.2013, reinstated the appellant into service provisionally and ordered de novo inquiry. Consequently, the competent authority/respondent No,1 initiated de novo proceedings against the appellant vide charge sheet dated 16.08.2013 containing the above said allegations against him and appointed SP Admin. And Security, Faisalabad as inquiry officer who submitted ' inquiry report recommending minor penalty against the appellant. However, the respondent No,1, vide impugned order dated 20.05.2014, awarded the appellant major penalty of dismissal from service. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 20.05.2014, the appellant preferred departmental appeal before RPO Faisalabad, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 31.10.2014. Thereafter, the appellant filed revision petition before IGP Punjab, Lahore, but the same was also rejected vide impugned order dated 11.01.2016.
Hence, this appeal.
2. Record as produced by the department, memorandum of appeal along with its annexures and comments of the respondents were perused. Arguments heard from both sides.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the first round of litigation the appellant was dismissed from service on the basis of an inquiry conducted by DPO Chiniot, which was a fact finding inquiry as is evident from para No,2 of show cause notice dated 03.08.2012, whereby regular inquiry was specifically dispensed with. He added that before deciding departmental appeal and revision petition two inquiries were got conducted; one was conducted by DSP/SDPO Sadar Circle, Faisalabad and the other was conducted by SSP RIB Faisalabad. Both the inquiry officers found the penalty of dismissal from service too harsh and recommended for minor penalty. Learned counsel further argued that on the direction of IGP Punjab, the competent authority conducted de novo proceedings by appointing SP Admin and Security, Faisalabad as inquiry officer who also recommended minor penalty against the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent No,1 without pointing out any deficiency in the de novo inquiry proceedings and without expressing any cogent reason to disagree with the recommendations of inquiry officer, awarded the appellant again extreme penalty of dismissal from service in an arbitrary manner in sheer violation of principle of natural justice, which is liable to be set aside by this Tribunal.
4. It was further argued that even otherwise the charges are factually incorrect. He explained that during his posting as Moharrir at CIA Staff, Tariqabad, Faisalabad, Muhammad Shahid, T/ASI arrested one drug peddler namely Sohail Ahmad s/o Ghulam Muhammad but subsequently he released the said accused from police lock up on the direction of Inspector Muhammad Asif. The DSP Organized Crime, Faisalabad reported the incident to CPO Faisalabad who appointed DPO Chiniot to hold an inquiry. During inquiry ASI Muhammad Shahid categorically made his statement that after arrest of above said accused he telephonically informed Inspector Muhammad Asif who directed him to release the accused, which was accordingly done. Learned counsel contended that in the whole picture the appellant did not play any role. But he was punished on the charge of not informing the seniors about the release of accused Sohail Ahmad by ASI Muhammad Shahid keeping aside the fact that said ASI released the accused on the direction of Inspector Muhammad Asif. Learned counsel continued that even if it is conceded that appellant was guilty of not informing the seniors about the arrest and release of the accused Sohail Ahmad, even then the penalty is too harsh and do no commensurate with the alleged guilt.
5. In addition to above, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the revisional authority/respondent No,3 rejected the revision petition of the appellant on merits as well as on the point of limitation without discussing as to how the revision petition was time barred, and without mentioning the date of its institution. Learned counsel explained that departmental appeal of the appellant was rejected by RPO Faisalabad on 31.10.2014 and after receipt of copy of the said order, the appellant filed revision petition before IGP Punjab, Lahore/respondent No,3 on 24.11.2014 through Pakistan Post Service vide its receipt No,UMS38966281 dated 24.11.2014, but the respondent No,1 wrongly rejected the same without bringing on record date of its institution.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney negated the contentions raised by the appellant and maintained that both the impugned orders are just and liable to be upheld because the competent authority is empowered by law to award any penalty contrary to the recommendations of the inquiry officer and there is no lacuna in the orders impugned before this Tribunal. He emphatically relied upon the comments of the respondents and maintained that the impugned orders have been passed lawfully and merit to be upheld.
7. Patient hearing was given to both the parties and record was perused minutely. It is well settled law that it is obligatory for prosecution to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt and on the basis of independent and discrete evidence. But in the present case, the department failed to prove its case adequately. The charges leveled against the appellant are with regard to inefficiency arising out of confinement and release of an accused without bringing this fact into notice of seniors while posted as Moharrar at CIA Staff Tariqabad and to substantiate the allegations multiple inquiries were conducted. In the 1st inquiry, though it was a fact finding inquiry, conducted by DPO Chiniot the appellant was held guilty and was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service, whereas the penalty recommended was a minor one. Thereafter at the level of appellate authority and revisional authority two inquiries were conducted; one was conducted by DSP/SPO Sadar Circle, Faisalabad and the other was conducted by SSP RIB Faisalabad. Both the inquiry officers found the penalty of dismissal from service too harsh and recommended for minor penalty. Yet another inquiry was conducted by SP Admin and Security, Faisalabad, who discussing the matter in detail recommended minor penalty against the appellant. Though the competent authority has the powers to differ with the recommendations of the inquiry officer but said powers are not discretionary rather subject to assigning valid reasons.
Whereas no reason was assigned by the punishing authority to disagree with the findings and recommendations of the inquiry officer. The punishing authority was legally bound to formulate his opinion on the basis of solid evidence available on record and give reasons for differing with the recommendations made in the inquiry report but the same fact is non-existent in the instant case.
Further if the punishing authority was not in agreement with the recommendations of inquiry officer, again a de novo inquiry should have been ordered pointing out the deficiencies and lacunas in the previous inquiry. But this was not done, which resulted into serious miscarriage of justice.
8. Coming to the merits of the case it is surfaced from record that while the appellant was posted as Moharrir CIA Staff Tariqabad, District Faisalabad one ASI Muhammad Shahid arrested a drug peddler namely Sohail Ahmad and brought him to police station and thereafter released him. As per statement got recorded by T/ASI Muhammad Shahid before the inquiry officer, he categorically stated that he informed the Incharge released the accused Sohail Ahmad. Thus, it is prima-facie proved that the matter of arrest and release was between the ASI Muhammad Shahid and Incharge CIA Staff Tariqabad/Inspector Muhammad Asif. Hence, the charge being contradictory in nature was not sustainable.
9. So far as the question of limitation in filing the revision petition is concerned it is established from record that appellant in para 5 of the instant appeal specifically asserted that he filed the revision petition within prescribed period of limitation, i,e, on 24.11.2014, however, respondent No,3, in reply to said para, did not rebut the version of the appellant and submitted an evasive reply that "matter of record". Perusal of order dated 11.01.2016 passed by IGP Punjab, Lahore/respondent No,3 shows that while rejecting the revision petition on the point of limitation,-no record with regard to its institution has been discussed or relied upon. Therefore, the version of the learned counsel, for the appellant with regard to filing of revision petition on 24.11.2014 through Pakistan Registered Post vide its receipt No,UMS38966281 dated 24. 11 .2014 carries weight.
10. It is also worth consideration that the philosophy of punishment is based on the concept of retribution, which may be either through the method of deterrence or reformation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed in its various judgments that "in service matters, extreme penalty for minor acts depriving a person from right of earning would defeat the reformatory concept of punishment. Reliance is placed on 2006 SCM R 60. To punish a subordinate in a harsh manner always creates lack of interest which may discourage him to prove himself an efficient and hardworking officer/official Keeping in view this principle I intend to reduce the quantum of penalty so that nature of punishment could be transformed reformatory to some extent and efforts of the appellant could be appreciated simultaneously as well as dispensation of justice could be ensured. At the most the appellant is guilty, so as to say, of not informing the seniors and for that act penalty awarded to the appellant is unjustified and not commensuration with the nature of charges allegedly attributed against the appellant, particularly when three inquiry officers recommended minor penalty to be imposed upon the appellant.
11. In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are modified in the manner that the penalty of dismissal from service is converted into forfeiture of approved service for one year. Resultantly, the appellant is reinstated into service. The intervening period during which the appellant remained out of service is treated as leave of the kind due.