1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. Muhammad Hanif for Appellant. A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents. MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).‑Atta Muhammad Khan Niazi, Constable No. 1972, Police Lines, Faisalabad has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha, and the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 8‑10‑1979, 18‑2‑1979 and the order dated 31‑1‑1982 passed by the respon dents be set aside and he be restored to the rank of Head Constable. . 2. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was posted at Police Post Samanabad of Police Station Factory Area, he was served with a notice under rule 6 (3) of Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 to show cause as to why one of the major punishments be not imposed upon him on the allegation that he absented himself from duty on 14‑7‑1978 and went to Jhang where he was arrested on 15‑7‑1978 in a case under section 13/20/65, Arms Ordinance registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jhang. The appellant submitted reply to the show‑cause notice and was also heard in person by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad. The Superintendent of Police did not consider his explana tion as satisfactory and held the charge proved against the appellant. Thus, he reverted him to the rank of Constable with effect from 8‑10‑1978, by observing that the charge of absence stood proved against him and that further action with regard to his involvement in the criminal case would be taken against him on receipt of the judgment of the Court. The appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad which was also rejected vide order dated 4‑2‑197‑9, endorsed to the appellant on 8‑2‑1978. The appellant was however, acquitted from the charge on 20‑10‑1979 under orders of Ch. Muhammad Jamil, Magistrate Section 30, Jhang so the appellant submitted his appeal to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police which was disposed of vide order dated 3I‑1‑1982. Hence this appeal: 3. We have heard the parties. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was not absent from the police station and was in fact on leave. It has further been argued that he had entered his depar ture on leave in the daily Diary Register of the Police Station which was interpolated after his arrest at Jhang and he was shown as absent. He has also submitted that since he has been acquitted from the charge under section 13/20/65, Arms Ordinance so he should have been restored to his original rank of Head Constable. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has controverted these arguments by submitting that the appellant had not obtained any leave from the competent authority and that according to the daily Diary Register he was marked absent. It has further been submitted that the appellant was arrested by the Police at Jhang on the mid‑night on 14th/15th July, 1978 and was sent for trial before the Court who acquitted him by giving him the benefit of doubt. He has con cluded that the appellant has been reverted as a constable due to his absence from duty only and not due to his involvement in a Criminal case, as such the judgment is not relevant for the disposal of the present appeal. 4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record. The record shows that the appellant was arrested at Police Station Kotwali, Jhang during the night between 14th/15th July, 1978 at 2‑45 a. m. where he had gone to 'see one Mst. Nasreen who was confined in the lock‑up. The appellant has not been able to show us any order by which he was allowed to leave the station or was granted leave. We have observed from Annexure D' that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Faisalabad had reported that he had examined the daily Diary Register as directed by the Sr. Superintendent of Police. According to this report the absence of the appellant was entered at Sr. No. 25 and that there was no evidence to show that the pages in the daily Diary Register were replaced as the binding of the acne seemed to be original. So taking into consideration this report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the admission of the appellant of his arrest at Jhang on 15th July, 1978 we bold that the appellant had absented himself from duty wilfully without taking permission from the competent authority and has rightly been held guilty of the charge, levelled against him. We may observe that the judgment is not of any advantage to the appellant because the order of the Superintendent of Police clearly shows that the appellant was punished and reverted to his substantive rank of Constable due to his wilful absence from duty only and the criminal case was not taken into account for any purpose at the time of imposing punishment upon him. 5. In view of the above analysis we hold that the appellant has rightly been held guilty of the charge of wilful absence from duty and there are no merits in his appeal which is liable to be dismissed. We have examined the record of the case to see if the penalty impose upon him is not unduly severe. The record shows that the appellant was appointed as a temporary constable in the Punjab Reserve Police, Chuharkana on 23rd September, 1973 and thereafter he was transferred to Rawalpindi District where he was promoted as temporary Head Constable on 18th January, 1976 under the orders of the Senior Superintendent of Pot1tc, Rawalpindi. He was then transferred to Faisalabad on 3rd January, 1977. The record also shows that during his short service from 23rd September, 1973 to 18th October, 1978, he was imposed minor punishments on seven occasions for absenting him wilfully. Since the appellant is habitual in absenting himself wilfully so we hold that the penalty, imposed upon him is not harsh and is proper punishment. 6. In view of the above analysis we hold that there are no merits in this appeal which is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.