' Brief facts of the case are that while posted as Incharge investigation Police Station Garh, the appellant was proceeded against departmentally under PEEDA Act, 2006 on the charge that he has not made any sincere effort regarding conduction of investigation and finalization of case FIR No, 522 dated 23.10.2010 u/S. 324, PPC and case FIR No, 526 dated 28.10.2010 u/S. 324, PPC. The appellant was served upon show-cause notice containing the above allegation and resultantly vide order dated 14.02.2011, he was awarded major penalty of "Forfeiture of service for one year" by S.S.P Investigation, Faisalabad. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred departmental appeal before CPO Faisalabad, who vide order dated 14.06.2013, rejected the same. Thereafter, the appellant filed revision petition before RPO Faisalabad, which was also rejected vide order dated 24.10.2014. 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, parawise comments offered by the respondents and record as produced by the department 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 S.S.P. Investigation, Faisalabad 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, CPO Faisalabad 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, SOR I (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, CPO Faisalabad was the competent authority in respect of the appellant and as such S.S.P Investigation, Faisalabad was not competent to award punishment to the appellant. For the reasons discussed above, it is deemed fit to remand the case to the competent authority for denovo proceedings. Accordingly, the instant appeal is accepted, the impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the competent authority, i,e, City Police Officer, Faisalabad for fresh decision after conducting a regular departmental enquiry into the allegations against the appellant strictly in accordance with law by associating the appellant and passing a speaking order within stipulated period as prescribed in law. Disposed off.