Brief facts of the case are that the appellant 'was proceeded against departmentally under PEEDA Act, 2006 on the following charges: "While posted at Police Station Shahjamal failed to perform his obligatory duty in a proper manner in that he accepted illegal gratification of Rs, 75,0001- from Muhammad Arshad S/o Allah Ditto complaint of case FIR No, 88/2Q10 u/S. 489-F PPC, which tantamount to inefficiency, negligence and corruption on his part, warranting strict departmental action against hi in under PEEDA Act, 2006."
The appellant was served upon a Show-Cause Notice No, 1109/PA dated 10.06.2010 containing the above alegations and resultantly vide Order No, 3045/PA dated 1.7.2010 he was awarded penalty of Dismissal from Service by the District I 'Mice Officer, Muzaffargarh. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferree departmental appeal befbre the Regional Police Officer, Dera Ghazi Khan, who vide Order No, 28964/PS dated 14.10.2010 rejected the same. Thereafter, the appellant approached this Tribunal by way of filirg the instant Service Appeal. The same was adjudicated upon by the then learned Chairman, Punjab Service Tribunal and decided the same vide judgment dated 13.04.2011, with the following observations:- Resultantly, the order of District Police Officer, Muzaffargarh, dated 30.06.2010 imposing major penalty of dismissal from service on the appellant is declared as without being lawful authority. As a result thereof, subsequent order of Regional Police Officer, Dera Ghazi Khan is also declared so.
However, this order would not be any bar if the appropriate appointing authority competent authority decided to proceed against the appellant in accordance with law.
The respondent department filed Civil Appeal No, 96-L/2012 before the Apex Court of Pakistan which was allowed, vide, judgment dated 22.03.2012 with the following observations: - "It appears that the afore-referred provision, of law was not considered by the Service Tribunal. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Service Appeal No, 3821/2010 shall be deemed to be pending before the Service Tribunal. However, since the respondent is not present, he shall remain reinstated till the final decision in the afore-referred appeal before the Service Tribunal. The appeal shall be decided within 6 weeks orthe receipt of this order."
2. I have heard the arguments from both the sides and perused. the record.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant that, she departmental authorities did not follow the proper procedure as laid down in the provision of Section 3 and Section 9 of PEEDA Act, 2006 for conduction of enquiry. He narrated that the appellant was never served upon any charge sheet and was not even associated in the enquiry proceedings. He further argued that -the statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded in absence of the appellant and this fact is in clear violation of dictum laid down by honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in many judgments like 2009 SCM R 412, wherein it has been held that "In case of awarding major penalty, a. proper inquiry is to be conducted in accordance with law, where full opportunity of defence is to he provided to delintepent it officer". With these submissions; counsel for the appellant proved for .selling aside the impugned orders passed by the departmental authorities.
4. The learned District Attorney has also been heard. He stated 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.
5. Patient hearing having been given to the parties, I am inclined to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel fir the appellant that regular enquiry in its true perspective has not been conducted by the departmental authorities before awarding major penalty to the appellant, which is violation of provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 and law settled by August Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment reported as 2009 SCM R 412, which has also been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is pertinent to mention here that the authority conducted the enquiry proceedings in a haste, which is against the principles of natural justice. The report of the enquiry conducted by DSP Investigation, Muzaffargarh dated 13.03.2010 reflects that the appellant was not heard and he was not joined the said enquiry proceedings, the enquiry was exparte and the enquiry officer recorded the one-sided version. The enquiry officer could have summon the appellant, but no genuine efforts were made by him. It is a settled law that one sided decisions, orders and judgments are not considered to be the balanced verdicts. No one can be condemned unheard. It is against the principles of natural justice i,e, Audi Alterm Partum and also a violation of Article 10-A of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The accused cannot be knocked technically. Technical justice has no sanctity in the eye of law. The punishing authority also did not look into the vines of the said report and based his order of dismissal of the appellant from service on C. the said exparte report. In the same way, the appellate authority has also overlooked the same, so the impugned orders suffer from illegality.
6. For the above discussed reasons, I am convinced that remand of the case at this belated stage as the appellant has also attained the age of superannuation, would be a futile exercise and would amount to further slaughter of the appellant by the axes of the departmental authorities. Reliance is placed on 2007 SCM R 1643, wherein it has been held that, "Civil servant had since been retired. holding of de-novo enquiry against him in absence of any lawful 'ustification, would be of no use".
Accordingly, the instant appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. As, the appellant has already been reinstated into service by the Apex Court of Pakistan, vide, judgment dated 22.03.2012, therefore, the department is directed It issue a formal notification of retirement of the appellant. As far as the intervening period, during which the appellant had remained out of service, is concerned, the same shall be treated as leave of the kind due in the light or Rule 73 of C.S.R Punjab Volume-II, which reads as under: "Grant of back benefits to a civil servant who was reinstated by a Court/Tribunal or the department is the rule and denial of such benefits is an exception on the proof that such civil servant had been remained gainfully employed during intervening period between his dismissal removal and reinstatement. However, entitlement of back benefits of a civil servant has to be determined on the basis of facts of each case independently. There could be cases at times when no difficulty would be lelt by the Court or Tribunal to grant back benefits when there are admitted facts between the parties but when there is a dispute in respect of the facts then, of course, the matter has to be referred to the department."
7. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.