2021 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
GHOUS BUKHSH Versus COMMANDER (A&Q) CHOLISTAN RANGERS, RAHIM YAR KHAN and others
| Citation | 2021 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, Faisal Arab and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ |
| Parties | GHOUS BUKHSH Versus COMMANDER (A&Q) CHOLISTAN RANGERS, RAHIM YAR KHAN and others |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Rangers Ordinance (XIV of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan Rangers Ordinance (XIV of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, Faisal Arab and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (GHOUS BUKHSH Versus COMMANDER (A&Q) CHOLISTAN RANGERS, RAHIM YAR KHAN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Mateeullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, Additional A.-G. and Afzal Mehmood, Dy. Supdt. Rangers for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 25.4.2018 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 191(L) of 2017)
S. 15(1)
Absence from duty for 12 days without a valid reason and authorization
Dismissal from service converted into removal from service
Plea of petitioner that he had a genuine reason for his absence, namely, the involvement of his mother in an accident and therefore, he had to leave his post in an emergency
Held, that admittedly leave was not obtained by the petitioner nor was any written application submitted by him for seeking such leave
During the period of his absence his mobile phone remained switched off
When the petitioner's Sector Commander received a SMS message from the petitioner, he wanted to contact him but the petitioner was not available
Petitioner's mother was admittedly advised rest for a few days after her thigh injury had been attended to
In the circumstances, the petitioner could have returned immediately thereafter, which he did not
Petitioner did not have a valid reason to remain absent from duty for 12 days
Petitioner belonged to a disciplined force/service and his absence from duty without authorization was a serious misconduct
Service record of petitioner showed that it was the third time during his service span that he remained absent without authorization
Action taken against the petitioner was justified, however the severity of the punishment of dismissal was the consequence that the petitioner could not seek government employment in any other department or office
Petitioner was an able bodied young man and may qualify for government employment where strict discipline was not enforced
Consequently, petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and partly allowed converting the petitioner's penalty of dismissal into removal from service.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
The petitioner was absent from duty for 12 days without obtaining leave. He was dismissed from service for such misconduct vide order dated 17.10.2106 passed by the Colonel Sector Commander, Cholistan Rangers, HQs, Rahim Yar Khan. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had a genuine reason for his absence, namely, the involvement of his mother in an accident and therefore, he left his post in an emergency.
2. It is admitted that leave was not obtained by the petitioner nor was any written application submitted by him for seeking such leave. During the period of his absence his mobile phone remained switched off; so that when the Sector Commander on receipt of his SMS wanted to contact him he was not available. Thirdly, the petitioner's mother was admittedly advised rest for a few days after her thigh injury had been attended to. The petitioner did not have a valid reason to remain absent from duty for 12 days.
3. In the circumstances, the petitioner could have returned immediately thereafter which he did not. Petitioner belongs to a disciplined force/ service and his absence from duty without authorization is a serious misconduct. This is happened for the third time during a span of his service. Earlier in 2010 when he remained absent for 7-days, and in 2011 when he was absent for 27 days, the petitioner was awarded punishment but without affecting right of service. In 2016, the highest penalty of dismissal from service has been awarded to him. We agree with the action taken against the petitioner. However, the severity of the punishment of dismissal lies in the consequence that the petitioner cannot seek government employment in any other department or office. He is an able bodied young man and may qualify for government employment where strict discipline is not enforced.
4. Consequently, this petition is converted into appeal and partly allowed converting the petitioner's penalty of dismissal into removal from service. MWA/G-11/SC Order accordingly.