The petitioner was appointed as Constable in the police department in 1976. He was promoted as Head Constable and then as A.S.I. and posted in Traffic Highway Police on the order of Inspector- General of Police, Punjab. The impugned order (Annexure-F), dated 9-1-1996 was passed whereby his transfer from Traffic Highway Police to Special Branch was cancelled. However, in the endorsement recorded in the aforesaid order, the petitioner was shown as constable instead of A.S.I. and transferred from Traffic Police, Punjab to Lahore District Police, with immediate effect.
2. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner on the ground that he could not be demoted from the rank of'A.S.I. to that of constable in arbitrary manner. In this regard, it was contended that before passing the impugned order, the competent Authority did not issue any show-cause notice to him nor he was provided an opportunity to be heard. As such it was submitted that the impugned order was bad in the eyes of law.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference to the comments submitted by the D.I.-G.. Police (Establishment) Lahore i,e, respondent No,1 and also to the comments submitted by S.S.P., Lahore i,e, respondent No,3 whereby it was admitted that petitioner was working as A.S.I. at the relevant time. It was, however, contended that since the petitioner was promoted as an Honorary Head Constable and thereafter, promoted as A.S.I. on ad hoc basis vide order dated 10-4- 1996 (AnnexureD), therefore, he held substantive rank of constable and as such there was nothing wrong with the impugned order whereby he was reverted to the post of constable and sent to the District Police, Lahore.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it is clear from the comments that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner or issuance of show-cause notice to him. It allegedly infringed the principle of natural justice that nobody should be condemned unheard. It was, therefore, prayed that the impugned order was not liable to stand' being against law and equity.
5. Nobody has turned up from the respondents side, to contest the aforesaid points.
6. I have given my careful consideration to the matter in issue and have also gone through the record minutely. It is obvious from the comments submitted by the respondents that petitioner was working as A.S.I. at the time when the impugned order was passed: It is also clear from the comments that before reverting the petitioner from the post of A.S.I. to that of constable, the competent Authority did not issue any show-cause notice nor .he was provided any opportunity to be heard in the matter. It is, thus, absolutely clear that the petitioner was condemned unheard.
Admittedly the petitioner was reverted from the higher post to the lowest in the cadre vide the impugned order which by all means tantamount to penalty for which the petitioner should have been provided an opportunity by issuance of show-cause notice as to why he should not be reverted to the lower post. In failing to do so, the Competent Authority acted in arbitrary manner and grossly violated the principle of natural justice, thereby also infringing the service rules, which clearly provided that no Government servant should be penalized without issuing a show-cause notice to him and also without hearing him in the matter. Needless to say that all the procedural and coda formalities provided in the service rules have to be followed before inflicting any penalty on a public servant. In the instant case, admittedly no such procedure was adopted by the authorities concerned and, therefore, the impugned order whereby the petitioner was reduced in rank from the post of A.S.I. to the post of constable was without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in the eyes of law.
7. In view of the above, this petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 9-1,1996 is set aside accordingly.