' Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was proceeded against departmentally under Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 on the below mentioned charges.
(i) He while posted as Incharge CIA; Hafigabad found involved in case FIR No, 208 dated 5.9,2014 u/8, 385.A, PPC registered at P.S. Sukheke Mandl, on complaint of S.I Khalid Mahmood, SHO PS City Dunyapur, District. Lodhran, on the charges of demanding ransom Re. 20,00,000/ for safe release of Wasir 13/o Khan Muhammad and Muhammad Bilal 8/o Allah Bukhsh, who were returning from Peshawar after recovery of Car No, 5342/LE.14, case property of case FIR No, 88/14 u/8, 395/170/171, PPC, PS City Dunyapur, District Lodhran.
(ii) He was found involved in kidnapping/abducting Wasir e/o Khan Muhammad case eyed Pathan R/o Qasimpur Colony, Bahawalpur Road, Multan and Muhammad Bilal S/o Allah Bukhsh R/o Basti Piplipur Multan and demanded Rs, 2 million ransom for their release.
(iii) He was arrested by S.I Khalid Mehmood, SHO PS City Dunyapur from the spot and sent to judicial after investigation.
' Investigation of the case carried out by. JIT headed by DSP/SDPO Pindi Bhattian including Inspector Riaz Hussain Haidri SHO PS Sukheke Mandi, Inspector Riaz Ahmad In-charge DIB Haflzabad and Saeed Akhtar members of JIT. During course of investigation he was held guilty of the charges.
(v) The abductees had recorded statements u/S. 164, Cr.P.C. And implicated him in commission of offence.
(vi) The telephone date (CDRa) also proved his involvement in the crime.
(vii) He absented himself from official duty from 07.09.2014 to 09,12.2014 vide D.D. Entries No, 33 and 12 of dates respectively. He again absented from duty since 12.12.2014 vide D.D. Entry No, 13 of date without any leave or intimation to the competent authority.
' A regular departmental enquiry into the allegations leveled against the appellant was carried out by S.P Hqrs, Gujranwala and resultantly, vide order dated 27.06.2015, RPO Gujranwala awarded the appellant major penalty of "Dismissal from Service". Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred departmental appeal before IGP Punjab, who vide order dated 18.01.2018 rejected the seine. Hence, this appeal.
2. Arguments heard and case ale Perused,
3. Besides raising various other objections against the impugned order of Respondent No, 1, the learned counsel for the appellant assailed the same on the ground of jurisdiction. He argued that the appellant was punished by Respondent No, 1 who was holding the post of RPO Gujranwala on acting charge basis due to retirement of regular incumbent of the post, i,e, Mr. Syed Dilawar Abbas PSP/BS20/DIG. Counsel for the appellant further argued that in this respect the order passed by Respondent No, 1 being beyond his jurisdiction is not sustainable in the eyes of law and thus liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant added that during the pendency of the departmental proceedings, the case FIR so registered against the appellant was tried by the Learned Judge of Anti Terrorism Court-II, Gujranwala and after relying upon the available evidence on record, while observing that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused, he acquitted the appellant from the allegations leveled against him vide judgment dated 17.02.2015. With these submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for acceptance of the instant appeal and reinstatement of the appellant into service by setting aside the impugned orders.
5. Conversely, learned District Attorney argued that all the codal and legal formalities were fulfilled by the authorities before awarding penalty to the appellant and during the course of departmental enquiry, the charges leveled against the appellant were fully proved without any shadow of doubt.
He further submitted that the acts committed by the appellant tarnished the image of Police in the eyes of general public and he gave enormous damage to the dignity of Police Department for which he deserves no leniency, therefore, the - instant appeal may be rejected.
6. Consideration having been given to the arguments put forth by both the parties, I am inclined to agree with the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant has been awarded penalty by the authority who was not competent to do so as he was inferior in rank, i,e, BS-19 vis-a-vis the post of Regional Police Officer, which is of BS-20 and as he was entrusted the assignment just to look after the affairs of the post of RPO Gujranwala w,e,f, 08.04.2015 vide Notification No, 1130/EXEC-III dated 07.04.2015 issued by Provincial Police Officer, Punjab, therefore he was not competent to award punishment to the appellant. It is pertinent to mention here that in a Letter No, 1521/PA dated 27.05.2015 addressed to IGP Punjab by Mr. Muhammad Waqas Nazir. RPO Gujranwala (Look after charge) regarding Criminal Miscellaneous Application No, 691/2014 pending before August Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Para 6 of the same Mr. Wages Nazir has himself conceded that he is looking after the affairs of the post of RPO Gujranwala in addition to his own duties as CPO Gujranwala till the posting of regular incumbent and hence not in position to decide show-cause notice for enhancement of punishment of ASI Ejaz Ahmad. In the light of above, it is observed that such kind of pick and choose on part of Respondent No, 1 is not acceptable as he refrains to decide show-cause notice of one police official (Ejaz Ahmad ASI) on the score of his look after charge and at the same time was uses his authority to penalize the other one (the appellant). In this back drop, the impugned order passed by Respondent. No, 1 being beyond his jurisdiction is ab-initio void and deserves to be struck down. Therefore, the appeal is.
Partially accepted in that the impugned orders are set aside and the appellant is reinstated into service from the date of his dismissal. However, the case is remanded to the competent authority for denovo proceedings through the process of a fresh regular departmental enquiry into the allegations against the appellant under the relevant law by appointing a senior ranked police officer or officers as Enquiry Officer or the Enquiry Committee. Since the charges leveled against the appellant are grave in nature, therefore, the competent, authority shall ensure that us is conducted in a racer and efferent manner in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the relevant law and a proper and meaningful enquiry report is prepared which should essentially reflect the facts of the case, the allegations against, the appellant, and his reply to the same the statements of the witnesses and their cross-examination by the appellant and the documentary evidence if any and the findings given therein are substantiated with proper reasons and facts and figures. On finalization of the enquiry proceedings, the authority shall decide the matter afresh through a speaking order containing proper findings supported with cogent reasons. On the basis of the outcome of the denovo proceedings, the authority shall also determine the status of the intervening period during which the appellant remained out of service.
Appeal partially accepted.