1. Appellant was appointed as Medical Officer on 29.2.1996 after selection by PPSC in BS-17 on regular basis w.e.f. 24.3.1996 and was posted and served at DHQ, Layyah. Subsequently in a DPC held on 4.1.2012 appellant was found fit/eligible for promotion in BS-18 and accordingly he was granted promotion as Senior Medical Officer on regular basis. Appellant joined duty as Senior Medical Officer vide notification dated 30.1.2012.
2. On 14.3.2012 appellant was served with a show-cause notice issued by the Special Secretary, Health Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore under PEEDA Act, 2006, alleging thereunder as follows:-- "You while posted as Medical Officer at DHQ Hospital, Layyah, submitted the ACRs for the period w.e.f. 2008 & 2009 having bogus signature of the countersigning officer i.e. Executive District Officer (Health), Layyah presently working as Executive District Officer (Health), Multan for getting promotion, in BS-18".
3. Appellant submitted reply, denying the charge attributed.
4. Before issuance of show-cause notice, vide order dated 13.2.2012 promotion of appellant was held in abeyance with immediate effect by the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Health Department.
5. Appellant filed representation narrating reasons against order of abeyance and sought withdrawal/recalling of the same.
6. Thereafter, respondent department vide personal hearing notice dated 21.5.2012 directed appellant for personal hearing before Additional Secretary Establishment, Health Department on 28.5.2012.
7. The proceedings initiated vide show-cause notice dated 14.3.2012 remained inconclusive and no inquiry/codal formalities/ order of competent authority was passed thereunder.
8. Thereafter the competent authority passed a fresh order of inquiry dated 30.11.2012 under Section 3 of the Act ibid on the charge of misconduct as follows:-- "On the report of Dr. Mukhlar Hussain Syed, the then EDO (Health), Layyah dated 13.02.2012 that his signatures as Countersigning Officer on the ACRs of Dr. Tahir Iftikhar, MO (BS-17), DHQ Hospital, Layyah for the period 01.01.2008 to 07.06.2008, 08.06.2008 to 31.12.2008 and 01.01.2009 to 31.12.2009 were fake, the Health Department requisitioned the ACRs under question from the office of Director General Health Services Punjab, Lahore and inquired the issue of fake signatures preliminarily. The version of Dr. Mukhtar Hussain Syed, Countersigning Officer prima facie stood, proved".
9. Dr. Mubashar Attiq was appointed as inquiry officer who sought reply which appellant submitted, denying the charges levelled.
10. The inquiry officer submitted report holding thereunder that forgery of fictitious signatures of countersigning officer on the ACR of appellant was not committed by appellant personally.
11. However it was held that appellant was beneficiary therefore recommended following penalties:-- Withdrawing of promotion orders from the date of its issuance.
12. Recovery of amount drawn by him over and above his own pay as M.0 B.S-17 as he is drawing pay as SMO (BS-18) since 31-1-2012.
13. Withholding of promotion for a period of three years.
14. Thereafter personal hearing notice dated 7.2.2014 in terms of Section 13(4)(b) of the Act ibid was served on appellant to which he filed additional defence and reiterated his earlier stance.
15. Respondent No, 1/competent authority observed that the charges stood proved and awarded following major penalties vide impugned order dated 27.3.2014:-- i. Rescind the promotion order Bearing No, SO(South)1-58/2010 ( July), dated 30.01.2012 to the extent of Dr. Tahir Iftikhar (Serial No, 84, Seniority No, 1242) under Section-20 of the General Clauses Act, 1956. ii. Major penalty of recovery of excess amount drawn by Dr. Tahir Iftikhar as salary after his promotion from BS-17 to BS-18 under Section 4(1)(b)(i) of the PEEDA Act, 2006. Such amount shall be recovered under the law for the time being in force. iii. Minor penalty of withholding of promotion for a period of 05 years under Section 4(1)(a)(v) of the PEEDA Act. 2006, after the reversion of promotion which was obtained through forged documents.
16. This period of five (05) years shall be counted from the date, when a person junior to the accused.
17. Dr. Tahir Iftikhar is considered for promotion and is promoted in future on regular basis for the first time.
18. Appellant preferred departmental representation 'before the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore/Respondent No, 3 which is still hanging fire. Hence this service appeal.
2. I have considered the arguments of both parties and perused the record.
3. Examination of the record reveals that show-cause notice dated 14.3.2012 in which reply was sought but under the Act ibid further proceedings were not conducted. On account of the same as mandatory requirement under Section 13(5) of the Act ibid remained inconclusive, thus the charge remained unproved.
19. Astonishingly a fresh order of inquiry dated 30.11.2012 by the competent authority on same but reframed charge was issued to the appellant under the Act ibid which couched differently after codal formalities culminated, into punishments afore-referred vide order dated 27.3.2014.
20. The later order of inquiry in question in presence of the earlier show-cause notice dated 14.3.2012 was violative of the Act ibid and could not be issued unless the fate of the earlier notice was decided. No order regarding the same is on Court file nor quoted in the parawise comments by respondents department. Subsequent proceedings conducted vide order of inquiry dated 30.11.2012 were void ab-initio and nullity in the eye of law.
21. The punishment awarded vide order dated 27.3.2014 is under two different enactments. The competent authority while awarding punishment can pass orders under the act under which departmental proceedings are initiated against the appellant, it cannot travel beyond the act which in the present case was under the PEEDA Act, 2006. The order of rescindment of promotion of the appellant passed under Section 20 of the General Clauses Act, 1956 was a transgression of authority which is not sustainable in law, simultaneously jurisdiction under two different enactments for awarding punishment cannot be invoked.
4. For what has been discussed above, appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and case is remanded to the competent authority for holding denovo inquiry proceedings against the appellant and to pass a fresh order by adopting proper procedure in accordance with law/rules.