1. Brief facts as gathered from the available record are that the appellant Tahir Yaqoob Ex-Constable No. 8643/C of District Police Lahore was proceeded against departmentally under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 by way of show cause notice Bearing No. 495/PA dated 18.05.2005 on the charge of patronizing gambling and providing shelter to the gamblers and was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service by Respondent No. 1 on 27.05.2005 against which departmental appeal and revision petition filed by the appellant before Respondents No. 2 and 3 were rejected vide impugned order Bearing No. 2976/PA dated 03.08.2005 and Bearing No. 1599/1 dated 01.02.2011 respectively, whereas this appeal is filed belatedly on 16.07.2013 precisely on the grounds that, before inflicting major penalty of dismissal from service no regular inquiry was conducted; that appellant was condemned unheard; that the Respondents No. 1 was not competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant under the provisions of Punjab .Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and that no limitation runs against a void order.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant stated that proceedings were initiated against the appellant under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and the appellant was awarded penalty of dismissal from service by Superintendent of Police, Headquarter (Law and Order), Lahore. He stated that according to Section 2(1)(aa) of the Ordinance ibid, competent authority means the Chief Minister or an officer authorized by the Chief Minister but not inferior to the rank of appointing authority. He explained that in District Lahore the CCPO being the appointing authority of a Constable was competent to proceed against the appellant under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, whereas the Respondent No. 1/Superintendent of Police, Headquarter (Law and Order), Lahore being inferior in rank to the appointing authority was not competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. He further stated that it is settled law that if the basic order is illegal and passed by incompetent authority, then all the superstructure based on it has to fall down. With regard to limitation, learned counsel for the appellant stated that as per settled law limitation does not run 'against an order passed by incompetent authority in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court reported as Province of Sindh vs. Ghulam Fareed 2014 SCMR 1189. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside of the impugned orders having been passed by an incompetent authority.
2. 3.Conversely, the learned District Attorney opposed the alleged merits of the case, however, with regard to competence of authority, he could not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. 4.I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned District Attorney and have examined the record.
4. 5.The appellant had been proceeded against under Section 3 of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 by Superintendent of Police, Headquarter (Law and Order), Lahore for an act of omission and commission dated 18.05.2005 and at that time Punjab Removal. from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 was in vogue and by virtue of the provisions of Article 23 of Police Order, 2002 and also by virtue of the provisions of Section 2(1)(aa) of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 it was only the District Head of Police i.e. DPO/CPO/CCPO (in present case CCP, Lahore) who alone was competent to initiate such proceedings and award due punishment to the civil servant by adopting due procedure under the law. But in present case it was Respondent No 1 who initiated disciplinary proceedings and imposed major penalty vide order dated 27.05.2005 upon the appellant. As the Respondent No. 1 was not competent for such disciplinary proceedings, hence by all means the impugned order of Respondent No. 1 dated 27.05.2005 as well as the subsequent orders of the appellate and revisional authorities had proceeded upon misconception of law and as the initial impugned order was corm non juice and void order, hence the subsequent orders affirming the same also became void being contrary to law that only the competent authority (in present case CCPO Lahore) was competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable at law. By virtue of the said orders being void, the bar of limitation was not attracted in the present case as the period of limitation could not run against such void order. Reliance is placed on 2015 PLC (C.S)
5. 151 and 2016 SCMR 460.
6. 6.For the forgoing reasons the appeal is accepted. Resultant the appellant stands reinstated into service. However, in view of serious charges leveled against the appellant, the matter is remanded to the Capital City Police Officer, Lahore for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant in accordance with law. Fate of intervening period would depend upon the outcome of denounce proceedings.