MUHAMMAD QASIM, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE/MEMBER-III .----Brief facts of the case as gathered from the available record are that appellant Muhammad Afzal, PST (retired) Gove rnment Primary School Kausar Khushab was departmentally proceeded against under Punjab Employees, Efficiency , Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. Competent authority on 30.04.2018, appointed DDEO(M-EE) Tehsil Naushera, District Khushab inquiry officer to conduct a regular inquiry against the appellant on the following charges:- "As per report of CEO(DEA) Khushab vide No.5032/E-I dated 23-4-2018 received on 30-4-2018, you were involved in subversive activities and threaten the innocent child in the school."
The inquiry officer conducted regular inquiry and submitted report to the competent authority with the following findings - i) He is guilty of immoral activities to some extent. ii) He failed to show his good character as an employee of a noble profession. iii). During the course of inquiry it has come into the notice of the enquiry officer that previous character and conduct in various places of posting was remained questionable, doubtful and disputed.
On receipt of inquiry report, the competent authority issued show cause cum personal hearing notice dated 07.07.2018 and then imposed penalty of withholding of 25% pension on 21.07.2018. The departmental appellate authority reduced the same into withholding of 2% pension on 14.1 1.2013. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal.
2. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant argued that impugned orders are against law and facts and so are not likely to be sustainable in the eyes of law. Further argued that appellant stood retired from government service on 25.04.2018 and after his retirement disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him vide order of inquiry dated 30.04.2018. The charges are not specific and of general nature. Infact the departmental authorities imposed penalty la an administrative aspect, which is against the law and liable to be set aside. Appeal be accepted, impugned orders be set aside.
3. The learned District Attorney opposed the arguments and argued that impugned penalty based on regular inquiry proceedings. The departmental appellate authority has already taken very much lenient view and reduced the penalty from 25% to withholding of pension 2%. Even the service appeal is barred by time and liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. Appeal being meritless and time barred be dismissed.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. To the extent of argument of learned District Attorney that service appeal is barred by time, the record discloses that departmental appeal was dismissed on 14.11.2018 and appellant filed the instant service appeal on 29.01.2019. Appellant's claim is that he came to know about order of dismissal of departmental appeal on 17-11- 2018 and thereafter he became ill and was advised by the doctor for bed rest and in this respect he relied upon photocopies of medical prescriptions. The medical prescriptions are dated 13.12.2018 and 01-.02.2019, whereas, as per record appellate order was communicated on 17.11.2018. So, it is admitted fact that appellant remained ill and advised bed rest by the medical practitioner . Being short span of delay , involved in this case, it is better to decide the appeal on merits and so, the period of delay is condoned.
6. As per argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was retired from government service w.e.f. 20.04.2018 and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him vide order of inquiry dated 30.04.2018, which is unlawful. In this regard it is observed that disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the complaint of general public on 23.04.2018 under Punjab Employees, Efficiency , Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, which were duly completed within one year of his retirement. So the department committed no illegality in initiation and concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant.
7. So far as merits of the case are concerned, obviously the impugned orders are not only against the principle of natural justice but also in violation of PEEDA Act, 2006, because the appellant was punished in a self styled and hypothetical manner where some uncalled offence/ allegations have been attribute d i.e. involvement in subversive and immoral activities, without any supporting substance. Further these charges are vague in nature as it is not specified how the appellant remained indulged in subversive activities and to which child of the school he threatened. In this respect, no reliable evidence is on the file, which is to be consi dered sufficient for imposing the penalty . Further while passing penalty orders; nothing has been mentioned with regard to defense version of appellant. Therefore, the penalty orders are found illegal and based on presumptive act on the part of departmental authorities. So, the instant appeal is accepted and the impugned orders assailed thereunder are set aside. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the departmental authority concerned as provided under Rule 21 of Punjab Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1975.