The impugned order passed by the respondent No.3/SP, PHP, D.G. Khan reflects that the appellant was charge sheeted on the allegation that a case FIR No.230/23 u/s 489-F PPC PS Kotmithan had been registered against the appellant and was dismissed from service after regular inquiry and further, the said case FIR was cancelled by the learned Addl: Sessions Judge-1, Rajanpur vide judgments dated 31.08.2023. He was found guilty of the charges as alleged in the charge sheet and was compulsory retired from service. In his departmental appeal, his penalty was converted into dismissal from service and thereafter, his revision petition was rejected.
6. Record speaks that the criminal cases registered against the appellant were tried by the learned Addl: Session Judge, Rajanpur who vide judgment dated 31.08.2023 cancelled the above referred FIR. Since, the charges against the appellant were not proved before the Court of Competent jurisdiction, therefore, no justification is available to keep him penalized for none of his fault. In such circumstances and keeping in view his acquittal from criminal charges, no ground exists to penalize him departmentally while converting his penalty into dismissal from service.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the alleged absence of the appellant from duty was neither intentional nor willful but was necessitated by the sudden demise of his uncle, an unforeseen and uncontrollable event. The appellant responsibly informed the Moharrir and the Incharge PHP about his situation and, after obtaining their permission, proceeded to his home. To substantiate his claim, the appellant submitted a death certificate to the competent authority. Despite the availability of this crucial document and the clear justification provided, both the competent authority and the appellate authority failed to give due consideration to this material evidence. Such arbitrary and circumstances renders the impugned decision unjust, unreasonable, and legally flawed. Even otherwise, the alleged absence spans only 13 days.
8. The inquiry proceedings against the appellant were conducted in flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions of the Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. The inquiry officer failed to adhere to the procedural safeguards explicitly outlined in these rules, thereby depriving the appellant of his right to a fair, impartial, and transparent inquiry. Consequently, the findings of the inquiry are inherently vitiated, lack legal sanctity, and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.
Reliance is placed as 2020 SCMR 1245, PLJ 2024 LHR 229, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 256, and 2023 PLC (C.S.) 979,
9. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned orders suffer from legal infirmity and being void order cannot be sustained. Hence, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Resultantly, the appellant is reinstated into service with all back benefits.
Be consigned.
