This appeal is reflecting a tale of ordeal and agony of a Medical Officer Doctor Saeed Hussain appellant spreading over 16 years. It started when the appella nt was 'working as Medical Officer in DHQ , Bhakhar when on 17.06.2002 by the orders of the Medical Superintendent, DHQ , Bhakhar , he was struck off from his duties and was directed to report to Director General Health Services, Punjab, Lahore. As per version pleaded by learned counsel for the appellant, he was not allowed to report formally in the said office of DG, Health Service, Punjab and for sufficient long time he was not provided posting anywhere in Punjab. Some departmental inquiry in the meanwhile was also initiated against him and a show cause notice was issued on 12.09.2003 to the appellant for his absence from duty but that, inquiry was never concluded for sufficient long time. Resultantly , appellant had to approach Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore by filing a Writ Petition No. 11886/2007 whereby an order dated 12.12.2007 was passed by directing the Respondents to decide the appeals/applications filed by the Appellant. Subsequent to passing of that order services of the appellant were placed at the disposal of EDO (Hea lth), Mianwali vide order dated 19.04.2008 subject to decision of the inquiry already initiated against him. The Secretary Health Department, Punjab issued a fresh show cause notice dated 06.03.2010 to the appellant under the PEEDA Act, 2006 in quite oblivion of the fact that previously the disciplinary proceedings were underway against the appellant under the Punjab Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and had not been culminated till the issuance of second show cause notice and then without holding a regular inquiry major penalty of "Compulsory Retirement" was imposed upon the appellant vide order dated' 21.11.2012. Against which appeal was still pending when the instant appeal was preferred before this Tribunal, however , during pendency of this appeal the said appeal of the appellant before the Chief Secretary , Punjab was also dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has been made scape goat and victimized without any fault on his part due to sheer political reasons and initial order of the Medical Superintendent, Bhakhar due to which he was struck off from duty was arbitrary against law, void ab initio and instead of reprimanding said MS for passing such an illegal order appellant suffered for the last 16 years and he ran from pillar to post to -get justice. He further contended that the inquiry firstly initiated by the Health Department was never concluded within stipulated period and even for a number of years matter was kept pending in the Department and number of reminders were also issued by the Secretary Health to the Inquiry Officer to Conclude the inquiry but without any success and when the appellant preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore the department annoyed and out of that arrogance and annoyance a fresh show cause notice was issued converting the departmental proceeding from RSO, 2000 to PEEDA Act. 2006 in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 26 of the PEEDA Act, 2006. He has placed his reliance upon 2003 SCMR 1720 and 2003 PLC (CS) 514 .
3. Learned District Attorney assisted by learned. Law Officer of the Health Department have supported the impugned orders and contended that appellant could not justify his long absence of about six years from service as he did not report in the office of DG,. Health Services, Punjab for sufficient long time and then he was rightly proceeded, against under the PEEDA Act, 2006 prevalent at the relevant time and no illegality whatsoever has been committed by the Respondents.
4. I have considered the arguments and meticulously scanned the record. Perusal of the record indicates that appellant was serving in DHQ Hospital, Bhakhar in the year 2002 when all of sudden without assigning any reason whatsoever the Medical Superintendent of that DHQ Hospital struck of the duties of the appellant from' the said hospital and directed to report to Director General, Health Services, Punjab. Thereafter , departmental proceedings were initiated in the shape of regular inquiry against the appellant under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Record shows that said inquiry remained pending for sufficient long time and was not concluded despite serving a number of notices and reminders by the competent authority to the Enquiry Officer. It is beyond comprehension that why said departmental proceedings were kept pending for sufficient long time and instead of reprimanding inquiry officer the appellant was made victim of the system. Record further shows that as soon as he filed the writ petition for finalization of the inquiries against him the department again started fresh round of proceedings against him by issuing a fresh show cause notice in the year 2010, after about eight years from the original episode in quite oblivion of the fact that previous departmental proceedings had not been culminated or concluded by the first inquiry officer and such proceedings initiated under RSO, 2000 could, not be converted into disciplinary proceedings under the PEEDA Act, 2006 in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 26 of the said Act which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
26. Repeal.-- (1) The Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 (Ord. IV of 2000 ), is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 (Ord. IV of 2000), all proceedings pending immediately before the commencement of this Act agains t any employee under the said repealed Ordinance or under the Punjab Civil servants Act, 1974 (Pb. Act VIII of 1974), and the rules made thereunder , or any other law or rules shall continue under that law and rules, in the manner provided thereunder .
5. It is thus crystal clear that sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the supra Act manifestly demonstrates that while repealing the Punjab Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 the legislature vividly and without any ambiguity saved all such proceedings pending under the said Ordinance on the day of promulgation of PEEDA Act, 2006, hence, such proceedings initiated under RSO, 2000 could not be converted into PEEDA Act, 2000 by the respondents. Such an act on the part of the respondents in sheer violation of said mandatory provisions of Section 26 sub-section (2) of the PEEDA Act, 2006, hence loses its legal sanctity . The aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan 2003 SCMR 1720 further fortifies this view .
6. It is pertinent to be noted that no regular inquiry was ever got conducted against the appellant despite the fact that it was a factual controversy regarding absence of the appellant as the appellant throughout remained vigilant in asserting his rights before different forums as a number of documents are available on record to establish said fact.
There is a very significant report of the then District Coordination Officer, Mianwali dated 23.05.2010 which shows that the appellant Dr. Saeed Hussain was transferred on administrative grounds from DHQ, Bhakhar and the public at large came on the roads for cancellation of that transfer orders and DCO while appreciating the services of the appellant to avoid any untoward incident in the area requested to the Health Authorities for recalling/review of the transfer order of the Appellant. Apparently , this letter is not related to the departmental proceedings of the appellant but adequately suggests that appellant was performing his duties diligently and professionally and was popular in the area to that extent that people came on roads against his transfer .
7. The record of this case further shows that appellant was apparently victimized when the initial order of stricking off his duties was passed by concerned MS of DHQ Hospital, Bhakhar and when the departmental inquiry initiated against him was not concluded for sufficient long time. The appellant knocked all the doors to get justice and fair play but all his bemoanings proved a cry in the wilderness and he sustained agony and hardship for a period stretching over about 16 years. Apparentl y, the conduct of the Respondents. while dealing the appellant in this very case had certain ulterior motives and victimization for the reasons best known to the respondents.
8. Instances are not lacking where the inquiry officers in our Govt. Departments either do not observe the formalities provided in the relevant provisions of law under which the departmental proceedings are initiated or the same are not concluded within stipulated period, resultantly , the subordinate civil servants have to suffer. In the instant eventuality as well, the authority did not take any appropriate action against the inquiry officer who did not conclude the inquiry for a period of more than five years which reflects inapt and lethargic attitude of the concerned department, resultantly , the appellant suffered mentally , physically and financially as he remained out of job for almost 16 years.
9. In this background, since the respondent have committed gross illegality firstly by stricking off duties of the appellant without any reason, secondly by not concluding departmental inquiry within stipulated period and thirdly by illegally converting it into the PEEDA Act, 2006 from PRSO, 2000, thus the impugned orders passed by Respondents. are set aside and by accepting this appeal the major penalty awarded to the appellant of "Compulsory Retirement from Service" while considering it too harsh under the circumstances is also set aside and the appellant is reinstated into service with immediate effect. Since the appellant has already sustained sufficient ordeal for the last about 16 years, therefore, there is no need to start any fresh round of inquiry in view of the peculiar circumstances of the matter and the period of absence if any shall be treated as leave of kind due. File be consigned after completion.