Brief facts of the case as gathered from the available record are that the Chief Minister/competent authority ordered initiation of disciplinary proceedings under Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 against the appellant Mustaneer-ur-Rehman (BS-19), former Senior Subject Specialist, Govt. College for Elemetnary Teachers, Jhelum and vide order dated 20.01.2012 appointed Mr. Ashiq Hussain Jafri (BS-2W, Director (P&B) Office of DPI (EE), Punjab, Lahore as inquiry officer to conduct a regular inquiry against the appellant on the following allegations:- "He is involved in immoral activities and created sexual harassment for girls students of Govt.
College for Elementary Teachers, Jhelum which tantamount to misconduct and moral corruption on his part."
The inquiry officer concluded inquiry proceedings and submitted his report to the competent authority recommending imposition of minor penalty of censure against the appellant. It was further recommended by the inquiry officer that the appellant may be transferred from his present place of posting to some other place. However, the competent authority having considered the inquiry report found the proposed penalty not sufficient qua the sensitivity of allegations and ordered a denovo inquiry by appointing Mr. Muhammad Arshad Javed-ul-Aziz (BS-20), Principal, Govt. Comprehensive High School, Sialkot as Inquiry Officer vide order dated 30.06.2012. The inquiry officer conducted denovo disciplinary proceedings and submitted report to the competent authority concluding therein that the charge leveled against the appellant stood proved and recommended imposition of rninor penalty of reduction to two stages lower in pay scale. On receipt of denovo inquiry report, the competent authority appointed Mr. Inaayat Ullah Jatoi (BS-20), Additional Director 0/o DPI (EE), Punjab, Lahore as Hearing Officer to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and on receipt of report of the hearing officer the competent authority passed impugned order Bearing No SO(E&D4) 1480/2011 dated 18.03.2013 awarding the appellant proposed penalty of reduction to two lower stages in pay scale for a period of two years.
Said order was called in question by the appellant through review petition, which remained unattended till the expiry of statutory period, hence this appeal was filed on 15.07.2013. However, during pendency of the instant service appeal review petition of the appellant was turned down by the reviewing authority vide impugned order dated 28.04.2014 and the said order was assailed through an amended appeal filed on 03.03.2016 taking up the grounds that charge leveled against the appellant is non specific and general in nature; that during inquiry proceedings no incriminating material has been produced by the departmental representative to prove the chdrges; that the findings of the inquiry officer are not based on any incriminating material; that the competent authority had not acted properly while passing the order for denovo inquiry.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the competent authority had transgressed limits of its powers as it could not have passed an order for denovo inquiry on the basis of insufficiency of punishment proposed by the inquiry officer. The learned counsel for the appellant in this regard has placed reliance upon the case law titled Secretary, Government of Punjab (C&W) and others vs. Ikram. Ullah and five others 2013 SCM R 572; that. the allegations are vague in nature and there is no mention of any occurrence in specific terms and that the charges are general in nature; the appellant produced affidavit of many persons including ex-Principals of the said college but the inquiry officer did not consider the same and without bringing on record any incriminating material evidence held him guilty of the charges in an arbitrary manners.
3. On the other hand the learned District Attorney negated - the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the competent authority was empowered by law to differ with the recommendations of the inquiry officer and pass an order of denovo inquiry which was rightly exercised by the competent authority and on the basis of denovo inquiry proceedings impugned penalty has been awarded to the appellant, which deserves to be upheld.
4. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned District Attorney and have examined the record.
5. In present case the competent authority i,e. Chief Minister Punjab has invoked powers of competent authority u/S. 13(6) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 by passing an order of denovo inquiry Bearing No, SO(E&D-1) 1- 180/2011 dated 30.06.2012, which has been taken much exception by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that the competent authority had transgressed limits of its powers as it could not have passed an order for denovo inquiry on the basis of insufficiency of punishment proposed by the inquiry officer. The learned counsel for the appellant in this regard has placed reliance upon the case law as referred in his arguments. The provisions of Section 13(6) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 plainly provide the competent authority with ample powers for initiation and for order of a denovo inquiry in case the competent authority is satisfied that the inquiry proceedings were not conducted in accordance with law and the merits of the case have been ignored or there was other sufficient ground to warrant such an order of the competent authority.
But for passing an order for denovo inquiry or remanding the matter to the inquiry officer/ inquiry committee, it is mandatory for the competent authority to record reasons in writing and to this extent the impugned orders suffer from serious legal infirmities as the previous inquiry officer namely Mr. Ashiq Hussain Jaffari, Director (P&B) Directorate of Public Instruction (EE) Punjab, Lahore/Inquiry Officer had given specific reference of the statements recorded in support of the allegations as' well as the other material produced on behalf of defence and had recorded findings that the charges had not been proved against the appellant. Although said inquiry officer also exceeded domain of his jurisdiction by referring to some secret information which an inquiry officer could not refer or rely for the purposes of making inference. However, I do not agree with the view of the learned counsel for the appellant that insufficiency of punishment could not be made a ground for passing an order of denovo inquiry as the words employed in sub-section (6) of Section 13 of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 were "satisfaction" of, the competent authority and what is required by the competent authority is to justify its dissatisfaction with the inquiry proceedings and the opinion of the inquiry officer with regard to quantum of punishment and the words "satisfaction" which may be also noted as dissatisfaction in case of passing an order of denovo inquiry or remanding the matter which has vast implications and it would depend upon the facts and merits of each case which may provide justification for an order of the competent authority. But there is no clear clause under statutory provisions of the Act ibid which may bar the competent authority not to pass an order of denovo inquiry or to remand the matter in cases of proposal of lesser punishments by the inquiry officer. The reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant by the inquiry officer. The reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard on case titled Secretary, Government of Punjab (C&W) and others vs. Ikram Ullah and five others 2013 SCM R 572 is misplaced also for the reasons that in present case the competent authority had awarded the proposed punishment as a consequence of the second inquiry report and had not acted upon the earlier inquiry report by proceeding to enhance the punishment without recording reasons.
6. Since it is second inquiry which has been made basis of the impugned order giving rise to this service appeal, hence it is imperative to discuss the available evidence recorded during the course of second regular inquiry and on the basis of applicable law the justification for imposition of the penalty upon the appellant. During this inquiry the statements of Baba Mukhtar, EDO (Edu) Jhelum, Muhammad Farooq Gondal, Ex-Principal GCET Jhelum, Muhammad Beshir Ix-Principal GCET Jhelum, Ishtiaq Mehdi Incharge Principal GCET Jhelum, appellant Mustaneer-ur-Rehman, Mumtaz Ahmedureshi Head Clerk GCET Jhelum, Muhammad Rafique Senior Clerk GCET Jhelum and Raja Rizwan Inayat Junior Clerk GCET Jhelum were recorded. The statements of complainant Mumtaz Ahmad Qureshi, Muhammad Rafique Senior Clerk, Raja Rizwan, Muhammad Bashir Asi were recorded on oath but the statement of Ishtiaq Mehdi Incharge/Principal of GCET Jhelum was not recorded on oath. The present appellant had not been afforded opportunity of cross-examination on the statement of Ishtiaq Mehdi. Muhammad Bashir Asi Ex-Principal of the College merely referred to an application of Mumtaz Ahmad Qureshi and requiring comments from Ishtiaq Mehdi but he did not describe his own knowledge in order to confirm the allegations by making a statement against the appellant. The statement of Raja Rizwan Junior Clerk is a hearsay statement as he stated that he heard about the matter in dispute of immoral activities of the appellant from staff of the college. The statement of Muhammad Rafique Senior Clerk is also to the effect that a student alongwith her colleague had complained before Incharge/Principal GCET Jhelum namely Ishtiaq Mehdi against the present appellant of his immoral activities. He too neither described the name of the student nor given date and time of their complaint before the Incharge/Principal GCET Jhelum. The sole incriminating material in the statement of complainant Mumtaz Ahmad Qureshi needs consideration. A sifting of statement of Mumtaz Ahmad Qureshi would disclose that he did not mention name of student with whom he found the appellant in an objectionable condition. He did not mention date and time of the occurrence. During inquiry proceedings unnamed student definitely could not have been produced and was not produced to support the allegations. The statement of the complainant Mumtaz Ahmad Qureshi regarding preparation of CD is of no probative value as said CD was not produced during the course of inquiry proceedings. The said complainant failed to justify lodging of complaint with a delay of one month. In the wake of solitary statement of Mumtaz Ahmad, which is somehow supportive to the allegations to the extent of his Chief Examination also becomes highly doubtful in view of his replies in the cross-examination and for the reasons of deductions of probative value of his statement as afore discussed.
7. In the face of the above mentioned material collected during inquiry proceedings in support of the allegations, the appellant had also examined Muhammad Farooq Gondal who supported the appellant viz-a-viz his good character and his discharge of official functions according to his complete satisfaction as he remained ex-Principal of the said college for the period 16.10.2008 to 10.11.2009. The departmental representative has not cross-examined this witness. The appellant had also tendered affidavit of Malik Tariq Mehmood, Khalid Mehmood, Yasir Raza Sherazi, Tallat Mehmood and Zulfiqar S/o Fazal Dar in support of his good character and conduct to support his defence plea but the inquiry officer skipped to consider the effect of their statements through affidavits while recording opinion that these were irrelevant. The inquiry officer seems to have lost sight of the nature of allegations leveled in the show-cause notice that it was the general repute of the appellant as well as his overall immoral activities for which he was charged and was put to disciplinary proceedings, hence, the evidence of his good conduct and character was very much relevant. But the inquiry officer failed to consider the same in total disregard of the charge in the statement of allegations for proper determination of the disputed facts before the inquiry officer.
Therefore, the inquiry proceedings do not justify the findings and recommendations of the inquiry officer for imposition of minor penalty as consequently imposed upon the appellant. It is also observed that the charges against the appellant were vague in nature as even for charge of general bad reputation the instances had to be made basis of the charge and those should have been specified by the competent authority.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the penalty imposed upon the appellant does not remain sustainable at law. Although the penalty in present case may not be grave but the charge against the appellant was graver in nature and also had its implications and sound approach had required that the substance and the material evidence if not produced by the representative of the department, the inquiry officer as well as the competent authority should have avoided to make recommendations and imposed penalty as awarded to the appellant. Therefore, this appeal is accepted and the impugned orders dated 18.03.2013 and 28.04.2014 are set aside.