JUSTICE (R.) QAISER IQBAL, CHAIRPERSON --- This appeal under Section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 preferred by the appellant seeking setting aside of order dated 25.01.2016 and appellate order dated 24.05.2017 whereby major punishment of forfeiture of approved service for one year was awarded. The appeal was allowed by short order dated 20.1 1.2017, reproduced hereinbelow:-- "For the reasons to be recorded later on, the impugned order dated 25.01.2016 and appellate order dated 24.05.2017 are hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs."
2. Succinctly , facts giving rise to the appeal are that the appellant Was appointed as Constable in the year 1992 in District Dadu upon qualifying training course from RTC passed from RTC Oderolal, District Hyderabad. The appellant's name was placed in A/BI promotion list, on successful completion of the course appellant was deputed to intermediate course at PTS, Shandadpur , in the meanwhile he was transferred from Jamshoro District to Karachi Range vide order dated 08.07.2013. On account of unblemished record of service. Mala fidely a show-cause notice was engineered, served upon the appellant on 31.12.2015 by respondent No. 3 containing following allegations:-- Reportedly . on 16.12.2015 during duty at Mobile-Ill (SP-620) of PS Steel Town you alongwith others were found busy in collecting Rs. 50 to 100/- at Toll Plaza, Link Road from every passing vehicle and placing the extorted amount in a shaping bag lying with Incharge Mobile AS1/Abdul Ghaffar Lakho which contained approximately to 6 to 7 thousand rupees of the extorted amount.
By doing this you have been found guilty of misuse of officials powers which is an act of gross Misconduct on your part and renders you liable for award of any one of the major punishment described in the Removal From Service (Special. Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000.
3. The appellant submitted reply to the show-cause notice without conducting proper inquiry and affording-chance of defence to the appellant, respondents No. 2 & 3 summarily proceeded against the appellant imposed the penalty of forfeiture of approved service vide impugned order dated 25.01.2016. Hence, this appeal.
(1) To declare penalty order dated 25.01.2016 as null and void ab-initio and set aside the same.
(2) Award seniority to the appellant from the date of appointment as assigned to his batch mates and also pass orders for due promotion in the light of length of service of 25 years neat clean record,
4. The appeal was filed alongwith application under- Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in submission of the appeal on account of the fact that the impugned order is illegal, void, therefore, entire edifice built upon is liable to fall down.
5. The respondent No. 1 in the written statement submitted that the major punishment awarded to the appellant, assailed in departmental appeal which was dismissed.
6. The respondent No. 2 in the written statement admitted facts contained in paras No. 1 to 4 being matter of record. It is averred that the punishment of forfeiture of approved service for one year was awarded by DIGP , East Zone on the report submitted by incharge complaint cell. He was assigned special duty. The allegation against the appellant are serious in nature. Major punishment of corruption charges in terms of Chapter 13, Rule-1 of Police Rules, 1934 were awarded and departmental appeal was rejected.
7. The written statement submitted by respondent No. 3 contained the allegation leveled against the appellant for extortion of money at toll plaza link road from every passing vehicle as a consequence thereof appellant was awarded penalty .
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised manifold pleas in support of appe llant's case it is contended that serious allegation had been levelled against the appellant for extorting money from passer-by vehicles without holding regular inquiry . The impugned order of corruption and misconduct was not in consonance width law. In support thereof reliance is placed in case of Nadir Khan v. Inspector General of Police & others passed by this Tribunal reported in SBLR 2017 Tribunal 127, Muhammad Hanif v. Provincial Police Officers & others, SBLR 2011 247, Najamuddin v. Div. Superintendent Pakistan Railways, Karachi & others, 2012 TD (Service) 151, Province of Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary , GOP and others v. Muhammad Sidduiqe Khan, 2000 SCMR 1321 , Muhammad Haleem, and another v. Pakistan Railways HQ, Lahore and others, 2009 SCMR 339, Muzaf far Alam Sidduiqui v. Chief Secretary and another , SBLR 2011 Tribunal 283, Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad and another v. Gohar Riaz, PLJ 2005 SC 113, Muhammad Abdul Moied v.
Government of Pakistan, through Secretary Ministry of Housing and Works and others, 2010 PLC (CS) 1143, Abdul Ghaf far v. DIGP and another , SBLR 2012 Tribunal 165.
9. In the above-cited case-law the rule enunciated is that in order to award major penalty a regular departmental inquiry would be imperative. In the present case neither it was ordered nor conducted as is manifest from the pleadings of parties. We also find that no limitation runs against a void order as it was passed without holding a regular departmental inquiry . Authority has not given any reason as to why there was no need to hold inquiry .
9. The next contention raised by the learn ed counsel is that no punishment such as forfeiture of approved service has been described in Government Serva nts (E&D) Rules, 1973 or Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000 such punishment awarded to the appellant by an unauthorized officer was illegal. There is no provision of authorized officer in the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000 under which the punishment of forfeiture of service has been imposed upon the appellant. Thus the punishment was patiently illegal and liable to be set aside.
10. The learned Addl. A.G. did not rebut the position that the action of the respondent No. 3, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Karachi East Zone and two Additional Inspector General of Police, Karachi Range was an incompetent authority , therefore, impugned order is patiently illegal and such punishment could not be sustained.
11. It is well-settled that when a different officer stood designated as authorized officer accused officer would be deprived of double check provided by law. The respondent No. 3 issued charge-sheet, he was not authorized to perform function of authorized officer thus acted in violation of law which vitiated entire proceedings based thereupon.
12. Bar of limitation can be ignored in respect of void orders but not in respect of erroneous orders. In the present case question of limitation would not arise in respect of order which are nullity in law, void and ultra vices. In support thereof reliance is placed in case of Muhammad Shall v. Mushtaque Ahmed through Legal Heirs and others, For the foregoing reasons the appeal was allowed by short order and these are the reasons thereof.