Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AMJAD ALI VS Respondent: THE SUPERINTENDENT OF- POLICE, DISTRICT VEHARI
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 1290
[Punjab Service Tribunal]
Before Syed Aal‑e‑Ahmad, Member‑I
AMJAD ALI
versus
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF‑ POLICE, DISTRICT VEHARI and others
Appeal No.744 of 1995, decided on 24th April, 2001.
Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Rr.4, 5 & 6‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Civil servant being a constable proceeded for evidence in the Court, but did not report back for duty and remained absent unauthorised for more than five months ‑‑‑Show‑cause notice was issued to the civil servant and he was asked to appear before the authority, but despite notice he failed to appear before the Authority ‑‑‑ Civil servant having voluntarily absented himself from his duty for a period over live months, no justification was available for allowing such an irresponsible official to continue in the Police Department‑‑‑Punishment of dismissal from service, being rather harsh, in. view of nature of misconduct, was converted into compulsory retirement.
N. A. Butt for Appellant.
Ali Afzal, IL/DR and District Attorney for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 24th April, 2001.
JUDGMENT
The brief facts of the case are that the appellant while serving as Constable proceeded for evidence in .the Court on 13‑8‑1992 (in Vehari District), but did not report back for duty. He was accordingly proceeded against under Police E&D Rules, by way of a show‑cause notice and was ultimately dismissed from service with effect from 13‑6‑1993, vide orders dated 5‑6‑1993 passed by the S.P. Vehari. His Departmental appeal and the Revision Petition both were also rejected by the D.I.‑G. and the Inspector‑ I General of Police respectively.
2. It is contended by the counsel of the appellant that major penalty was imposed upon him without holding any regular enquiry. The respondent- Department on the other hand stated that the‑appellant remained absent for 5 months and 15 days and that he was dealt with under the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules. He was issued a show‑cause notice for unauthorised absence and was required to appear before the Authority .(Superintendent of Police) for personal hearing. He did not care to appear before the S.P./Authority for personal hearing in spite of notice served on him. He was, therefore, rightly punished.
3. I have heard the District Attorney and the Inspector Legal and gone through the record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contented that the appellant was condemned unheard and that the impugned penalty is too harsh keeping in view the misconduct which only relates to absence which was on medical grounds.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and find that the appellant voluntarily absented from his duties for a period of over 5 months. There appears to be no justification for allowing such an irresponsible official, to continue in the Department. However, the punishment of dismissal from service is rather harsh, keeping in view the nature of misconduct.
6. In view of the circumstances explained above, the punishment of dismissal from service is hereby converted into compulsory retirement.
H.B.T./70/P Order accordingly.