Appellant has impugned orders dated 4.9.2013, 3.6.2014 & 16.1.2015 passed by the Respondents No, 1, 2 & 8 respectively seeking setting aside the aforesaid orders.
2 Briefly, appellant joined the police department as constable w,e,f, 23.11.1986 in Lahore District and served at various police stations.
During posting at Investigation Wing of PS Hayre, Lahore appellant was dealt with departmentally under the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 by issuance of show-cause notice dated 21.6.2013 on account of inefficiency and guilty of misconduct.
Appellant submitted reply, denying the allegations leveled therein.
Before passing of impugned order dated 4.9.2013 by Superintendent of Police, Investigation, Cantt Division, Lahore summoned him in the orderly room, thereafter awarded punishment of reduction in rank from ASI to Head Constable.
Appellant filed an appeal against the said order which was rejected on 3.6.2014 by the DIG of Police, Investigation, Lahore.
His revision petition before the CCPO, Lahore met the same fate on 16.1,2015. Hence this appeal.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant at the very outset raised an objection that the order impugned dated 4.9.2013 was passed by SP, Investigation, Cantt Division, Lahore who was incompetent as under Article 2(1)(xi) of the Police Order, 2002, Head of District Police means DPO, CPO and CCPO who were competent to pass orders in respect of the appellant.
It was further urged that under Article 23 of the said order, a DPO can award punishment to officers in grades BS-1 upto BS-15, in view of the said provisions, the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Investigation, Cantt Division, Lahore had no legal footing and subsequent orders passed were also void.
It was-contended that the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 were enacted under the Police Act, 1861 which was repealed, therefore, the rules framed thereunder too did not remain in vogue.
Further, punishment awarded to the appellant does not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct attributed to him.
4. Conversely, learned District Attorney contended that the order of reduction in rank from ASI to Head Constable was passed by the competent authority who was eligible to do so under the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975. Further, appellant did not investigate the case properly and sent the accused to Judicial lock up without any justification nor sent the recovered weapons and empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory as a result of which an innocent person lost his freedom which shows clear mala fide on his part, therefore, he deserves no leniency.
5. Argument's heard record perused.
6. Appellant was proceeded under the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975, wherein in the Schedule of Powers of Punishment Table, the authority to award punishment is the Superintendent of Police in respect of the appellant.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that in view of Police Order, 2002 under Article 2(1)(xi), the Head of the District Police means, DPO, CPO and CCPO and similarly, under Article 23 of the said order, DPO being the authority for awarding punishments to all ranks from BS-1 upto BS-16. The said provisions of law are applicable in case disciplinary proceedings are initiated under the PEEDA Act, 2006. In the case in hand, the show-cause notice was issued under the provisions of Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975.
PEEDA Act, 2006 ceased to be in vogue regarding disciplinary matters relating to police officials w,e,f, 30.7.2012. The Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 framed under the Police Act, 1861 despite repealing of Act remained protected/saved under Section 185 of Police Order, 2002 meaning, thereby, that after ceasing of PEEDA Act, 2006 the rules remained intact therefore, the show-cause notice issued under the rules had the protection of law and as a consequence orders passed thereunder are valid.
In view of the same, contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant that show -cause notice as veil as the impugned order dated 4.9.2013 were passed by an incompetent authority is incorrect.
7. During investigation of the case, appellant arrested accused namely Bilal and obtained his six days physical remand, but nothing recovered from him, thereafter he was sent to judicial lock up.
So far as not sending arms and empties to Forensic Science Laboratory, during investigation both parties agreed that arms were used but it was yet to be determined as to which weapon was used and by whom, therefore it was not necessary to send the arms and empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory, hence charges leveled against the appellant remained unproved.
On information of afore-referred allegations, a fact finding inquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police, Investigation, the inquiry is inchoate but, on the basis of same show- cause notice was issued and regular inquiry was dispensed with without giving any cogent reasons. Award of major punishment on the basis of faulty/defective inquiry was against the norms of natural justice. A fair perusal of the proceedings conducted against the appellant manifest that the allegations remained unsubstantiated and nothing was proved against the appellant.
8. in view of the facts discussed above, this appeal is allowd, impugned orders are set aside, Appellant is restored to his original rank of ASI w,e,f, 4.9.2013.