Law:

Section:

Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline & Accountability Act, 2006-- ----Ss. 4(b)(iii), 10(1) & 13--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Dismissal order as well as order for rejection of departmental appeal--Recommendations of inquiry officer--Penalty of forfeiture of service--Show-cause notice--Defectiveness of inquiry--No prosecution witnesses were recorded--Discriminatory attitude--Question of-Whether I.O has violated requirements for not cross-examining witness and whether competent authority has passed order without procedure--Validtiy--If it is presumed that dismissal order has been passed while disagreeing with recommendations of I.O. competent authority must have recorded specific reasons of his disbelieving recommendations of I.O. by elaborating defences--Competent authority has recorded all submissions of petitioner but while passing dismissal order has not given specific findings for enhancing penalty from forfeiture of past service for two years to dismissal from service and has also ignored facts of defectiveness of inquiry--Since competent authority has passed a non-speaking order which is without any examining and recording of reasons as envisaged under Section 13(6) of 2006 Act--It is inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law as envisaged by Art. 4 of Constitution--Hence, it is duty and obligation of every public functionary, including Government, to act within four corners of mandate of Constitution--Petition was accepted. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: JAWAD HASSAN, JUSTICE:---.--- Through the instant constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution"), the Petitioner has impugned his dismissal order dated 22.12.2014 as well as order dated 2.11.2015 for rejection of his Departmental Appeal. 2. The facts succinctly revealed from the petition are that the Petitioner was Taxation Officer TMA, Okara and after charge sheet an inquiry was conduct against him in which he filed written defense specifically refuting all the allegations. It is alleged that the Inquiry Officer recommended major penalty of…