PRESENT
1. Mr. Allah Nawaz Khosa, Advocate Counsel for the appellant.
2. Hafiz M. Asif, Deputy District Attorney.
3. Rana Abdul Rehman Law Officer, DR.
Brief facts as gleaned out from the memorandum of appeal are that the District Education Officer (MEE) Khushab/Competent Authority proceeded against the appellant under PEEDA Act, 2006 and awarded the major penalty of Removal from Service vide order dated 30.05.2022. Against this order, the appellant preferred departmental appeal before the Chief Executive Officer (DEA) Khushab/Appellate Authority which was rejected vide order dated 01.07.2022. Hence, this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant inter-alia contended that the impugned punishment is a result of an inquiry conducted by inquiry officer but during inquiry proceedings, the appellant was deprived of his right of fair trial as well as to produce evidence with liberty and also not granted a chance to cross-examine the witnesses/material evidence; that the punishing authority as well as the appellate authority also failed to take notice of illegalities taken place in the inquiry proceedings.
3. Conversely, learned Deputy District Attorney maintained that the inquiry proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and that no illegality in the inquiry proceedings could be pointed out; that the evidence recorded during inquiry proceedings was sufficient to prove the charges, hence the appeal in hand has no force.
4. Arguments raised by the learned counsel appellant as well as learned D.D.A heard and available record perused.5. In order to dig out the truth, Mr. Faiz Hussan Malik, Dy. District Education Officer (M-EE) Tehsil Noorpur Thal was appointed as inquiry officer, who after conducting the inquiry submitted his report and after perusing the report as well as record, the Competent Authority imposed the major penalty of “removal from service”, which subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority while rejecting the departmental appeal of the appellant.
6. Perusal of the inquiry proceedings conducted by Dy. District Education Officer (M-EE) Tehsil Noorpur Thal reveals that the said inquiry was not in the proper form and without examining the witnesses/material evidence in support of charges and opportunity of cross-examination to the appellant. Therefore, such report is not acceptable under the eye of law. Reliance is placed on 1993 SCMR 1440 titled “Jan Mohammad Vs. General Manger etc.
7. As the department has failed to get conducted proper regular inquiry against the present appellant before imposing impugned major penalty in this case, hence the punishment impugned is not justified. The inquiry officer failed to adopt proper procedure as laid down in judgment reported in PLJ 2011 Tr.c (services) 131 titled as Javaid Qurashi Vs. Chief Post Master Hyderabad, etc and this amounts to violation of the principle of natural justice, therefore, taking legal light from the case law mentioned above, this appeal is partially allowed and the impugned orders, challenged therein, are set aside and the appellant is reinstated in service.
