1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Manzoor Hussain Bhatti, District Attorney and Jameel Akhtar Chohan, Inspector Legal, Rahimyar Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th October, 1996. The appellant Faiz Ahmad, Ex‑Constable No. 353 of Rahimyar Khan District was proceeded against under the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975 allegedly on account of his unauthorised absence from duty from 27‑6‑1984 to 7‑9‑1984, 23‑10‑1984 to 6‑1‑1985 and again from 8‑1‑1985 onwards in addition to his earlier absence from duty from 19‑6‑1984 to 25‑6‑1984. He was served with a show‑cause notice in reply to which he stated that he had absented himself from duty due to unsatisfactory state of his domestic affairs, the elopement of his wife from Ahmadpur Dewan. District Rajanpur and inundation of his house during the flood. He was heard in the orderly room on 26‑1‑1985. Statedly, he could not justify his absence from duty. The authority (i.e. the S.P., Rahimyar Khan) who took note of minor punishments which had been imposed on the appellant earlier in the course of his service of about 7 years since he joined police service pn 22‑6‑1977. The appellant was consequently removed from service by the S.P., Rahimyar Khan vide his order, dated 26‑.1‑1985 (Annexure A). His appeal was rejected by D.I.‑G. Police on 14‑12‑1985 (Annexure 'B'). His revision petition met with the same fate and it was finally rejected by the Additional I.‑G. Police, Punjab on 19‑3‑1994 whereafter he filed the instant appeal before this Tribunal on 20‑4‑1994 under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the services of the appellant could not have legally been dispensed with as he was proceeded against on account of the alleged absence from duty amounting to misconduct on his part which was controverted by him. Learned counsel maintains that the appellant had explained his position and had referred to the grave situation in which he was caught up due to the elopement of his wife and also referred to the fact that his house had collapsed during the flood. The defence offered by the appellant, counsel maintains, called for the institution of a regular inquiry to find out the veracity or otherwise of the defence taken by him. According to the learned counsel, regular inquiry to determine the actual facts of the case was not held in contravention of the instructions issued by the I.‑G.P. himself during the years 1984 and 1985. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned orders were passed in a summary manner, in disregard of the instructions issued by the I.‑G.P. himself. Learned counsel, therefore, maintains that the impugned orders were fit to be set aside and the appellant reinstated in service with all back benefits.

3. Learned District Attorney relies on the written objections filed by the respondents. His view is that the general conduct of the appellant was such that he had rightly been removed from police service as there was no room for an indiscipline person like him in the Police Force. Learned District Attorney further states that according to the record, the appellant was indeed served with a show‑cause notice and his services were dispensed with without holding a regular inquiry. Learned District Attorney, however maintains that ‑the facts of the case were crystal clear. The appellant has admitted that he had remained absent from duty and it was of no material value as to what were the circumstances which had compelled him to remain absent from duty. Learned District Attorney maintains that the appellant had neglected public service although he could not produce sufficient evidence to show that circumstances were such as to create hindrance in resumption of duty by him. According to the learned District Attorney, the appellant remained absent from duty for 7 days in June. Again he remained absent from duty for 2 months and 11 days from 27‑6‑1984 to 7‑9‑1984, followed by yet another spell of absence from duty from 23‑10‑1984 to 6‑1‑1985 (2 months and 15 days). Finally he absented himself from duty from 8‑1‑1985 onwards. He did not turn up in the orderly room on 24‑1‑1985 and on the second summon, he appeared in the orderly room on 26‑1‑1985 and as he failed to justify his absence from duty from time to time, he was removed from service.

4. Be that as it may, law must take its own course. Those in public offices have to abide by the letter of law for the ultimate good of the society. The appellant had given two sound reasons which could have driven any person of his intellectual calibre to a state of bewilderment. Devotion of duty varies from man to man. It would have been appropriate if the version of the appellant was verified through a regular inquiry and in case the facts had proved otherwise, he could have been visited with the extreme penalty of dismissal from service as well. There is hardly any justification to remove a police official who had rendered 7 years long service and on whom Government had spent so much without even determining the extent of guilt on his part.

5. In view for the foregoing discussion, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and re‑instate the appellant in service with the direction that the respondents shall have the discretion to hold a regular inquiry to determine the extent of guilt on the part of the appellant. The manner in which the period of his absence from duty from the date of his removal from service till he resumes duty shall also be determined by the competent Authority while finalising the de novo departmental proceedings against the appellant.

6. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./535/Sr.P Appeal accepted.