Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SAEED VS Respondent: SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HEADQUARTERS (LAW AND ORDERS) LAHOREHonorable Justice Ch. Muhammad Zafar IqbalDr. Eshan-ul-Haq,Muhammad Naeem Malik
2006 P L C (C
2006 P L C (C.S.) 720
[Punjab Service Tribunal]
Before Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Member
MUHAMMAD SAEED
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HEADQUARTERS (LAW AND ORDERS) LAHORE and others
Appeal No.1654 of 2004, decided on 21st September, 2005.
Civil service---
----Dismissal from service---Reinstatement---Employee was dismissed from service on the charge that he remained absent from duty for the last two/three years---Period for which employee had been charged for being absent, had been paid by the Department---Employee had been prosecuted in a slipshod manner without noticing material error of pays being paid to him without giving proper weight to his absence or no-n absence---Alleged prolonged absence though was a serious charge, but haphazard prosecution was another proof of departmental slackness---Employee was reinstated with direction to the Authorities to hold a de novo proceedings against employee---Fate of intervening period would be decided after conclusion of said de novo proceedings.
Dr. Eshan-ul-Haq, Counsel for Appellant.
Muhammad Naeem Malik, District Allorney for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 21st September, 2005.
JUDGMENT
CH. MUHAMMAD ZAFAR IQBAL, (MEMBER).---The appellant was departmentally prosecuted on the basis of show-cause notice No.1052/RSP dated 10-2-2004 on the charge that he had remained absent from duty for the last two/three years.
2. On the basis of this prolonged absence, he was dismissed from service vide order No.756-58/RSP/H.Q. dated 20-2-2004 by the competent authority, which was upheld by the appellate authority vide order No.1422/PA dated 30-7-2004.
3. Aggrieved by these orders the appellant filed the instant appeal No.1654 of 2004. After its regular admission, the comments of the respondents were sought and are placed on file.
4. During the arguments the learned counsel Dr. Ehsan-ul-Haq, pointed out that the period for which he has been charged for being absent had been being paid by the police department vide "Qabzal Wasool", which has been perused in the open Court in the presence of Departmental Representative and learned counsel. It was found that he had been paid the salary regularly uptill 31-12-2003 and the pay of January and February 2004 had been refunded back by the disbursing authority because show-cause notice had been issued to him on 10-2-2004. This is an example of jumble of confusions on the part of the department. The appellant had been prosecuted in a slipshod manner without noticing the material error of pays being paid to him without given proper weight to absence or non-absence. This prolonged absence is a serious charge but haphazard prosecution is another proof of departmental slackness. I have no option but to reinstate the appellant and to direct the authorities to hold a de novo proceedings. The intervening period will be decided after the conclusion of the de novo proceedings. The result of de novo proceedings be intimated to Registrar of this Tribunal within 60 days. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to cost. Consigned to record room.
H.B.T./64/PST Order accordingly.