Briefly , disciplinary proceedings were initiated against appellant under the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 through show cause notice dated 28.02.2015 issued by the DPO, Mianwali on the following charges: "As per report dated 13.12.2014 received from PS Piplan, constable Javed Iqbal No. 555 of this district has been arrested on the charge of involvement in case Fir No. 164 dated 24.6.2014 u/S. 395/412 PPC PS Piplan and sent to the judicial custody (Central Jail, Mianwali) having been found guilty ."
Resultantly , the competent authority awarded major penalty of dismissal from service to the appellant vide order dated 21.03.2015.
Aggrieved of the order , appellant preferred departmental appeal before the RPO, Sargodha which was rejected vide order dated 16.09.2015.
Thereafter , appellant preferred revision petition before IGP, Punjab, Lahore which was also rejected vide order dated 17.05.2019. Hence this service appeal.
2. Arguments heard, record perused.
3. It is evident from record that appellant was deprived of fair opportunity to defend. Before awarding major penalty of dismissal I from service, neither regular inquiry was conducted nor any witness was recorded, appellant was punished just on the basis of a fact finding inquiry . It is imperative to hold regular departmental inquiry to dig out the truth. It is settled law that no major penalty can be awarded to an accused civil servant just on the basis of a fact finding inquiry .
It is settled law that charges leveled against the appellant involved factual controversy where holding of a regular inquiry is essential, particularly when such charges are specifically denied, in order to meet the ends of justice.
Reliance is placed on judgments reported as 2004 SCMR 294 & 2009 SCMR 339 .
4. For what has been discussed above, this appeal is allowed , impugned orders are set aside. Appellant is reinstated into service and the case is remanded to the competent authority for its disposal afresh if so advised after holding a regular inquiry , by giving a visible opportunity of fair trial to the appellant preferably within a period of 90 days after receipt of certified copy of this order . The intervening period shall be decided by the authority after the outcome of inquiry proceedings.