Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AURANGZEB VS Respondent: INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 1106
[Punjab Service Tribunal]
Before Ch. Muhammad Sarwar, Member
AURANGZEB
Versus
INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others
Appeal No. 3532 of 1997, decided on 28th September, 2000.
Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑-‑
‑‑‑‑Rr. 6 & 7‑‑‑Dismissal. from service‑‑‑Civil servant who proceeded on three days casual leave, did not return for duty for about five months and sent applications for leave on medical grounds supported by medical certificates‑‑‑Civil servant was dismissed from service after giving him show -cause notice, but without holding inquiry against him‑‑‑Major penalty of dismissal from service could not be awarded without conducting regular inquiry‑‑‑Punishment awarded to the civil servant being harsh, was set aside and he was reinstated in service.
1997 PLC (C.S.) 817 ref.
Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai for Appellant.
Muhammad Ashiq Bhatti, District Attorney for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 28th September, 2000.
JUDGMENT
Appeal against order dated 3‑7‑1995 vide which the appellant was dismissed from service.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was constable in the Police Department. He proceeded on 3 days' casual leave on 16‑1‑1995. He did not return for duty and sent applications for leave on medical grounds supported by medical certificates. Proceedings under Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 were initiated against him. He was given show -cause notice on 29‑5‑1995. His reply to the show‑cause was not considered and he was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 3‑7‑1995. His appeal was rejected on 25‑10‑1995 and review petition was rejected on 5‑9‑1996. Hence this appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the.appellant, District Attorney, Departmental Representative and have perused the record and para-wise comments submitted by the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant had gone on casual leave for 3 days. He fell ill and sent leave application on medical grounds duly supported by medical certificate. The appellant did not recover from illness. He remained under treatment of other doctors and sent second application of leave on medical grounds duly supported by medical certificate of another doctor. In the show‑cause notice dated 25‑9‑1995, it is admitted that his leave applications along with medical certificates were received. He further argued that the leave application on medical grounds cannot be refused. He also argued that no enquiry was conducted into the matter.
4. The respondents in their comments has submitted that the appellant remained absent for about 5 months. During the 15 years service, he earned 13 bad entries. He is habitual absentee. During the year 1993, he was dismissed from service due to absence but was reinstated on compassionate grounds. The appellant had not improved. He is in-correctable and his conduct proved that he is not fit to be retained to disciplined force.
5. The appellant was awarded major penalty without conducting proper enquiry into the matter particularly when the appellant had submitted leave applications on medical grounds duly supported by medical certificates. In the light of rules 6 and 7 of Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 and according to the instructions issued by the Inspector‑General of Police vide No. 4504 40/MIV, dated 4‑3‑1484 major penalty cannot be awarded without conducting regular enquiry. It was held in 1997 PLC (C.S.) 817 that if allegations against the accused civil servant/employee are of serious nature and if he denies same, regular inquiry cannot be dispensed with. Procedure adopted in holding enquiry by department was not warranted by law.
6. The appellant was dismissed from service without holding proper enquiry on account of wilful absence of 158 days. Punishment awarded to the appellant is too harsh, 1, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders dated.3‑7‑1995, 25‑10‑1995 and 5‑9‑1996. The appellant is reinstated in service. The intervening period shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay.
7. There will be no order as to costs.
H.B.T./71/P (S.Trib.)