1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. NASIM HAIDER (MEMBER).

All the above 5 (five) appeals are disposed of by this single order because identical points of law and fact are involved.

2. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Abdul Sattar Mughal, Advocate for appellants and Mr. Abdul Ghani Shaikh, A.A.-G. for official respondents perused the record of the cases. This Tribunal was pleased to announce on 22nd March, 1995 to reserve the order for announcement on 30th March, 1995.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants frankly conceded that all the appellants did not have any case prima facie because they were working as police constables with variation in the length of their service but none of them had a service of more than 10 years. All of them were selected for Elite (Commando) training, reported for training but later on absconded from that training for one reason or the other. The plea of Mr. Dil Murad (Appeal No. 149 of 1994) was that his mother fell ill. Mr. Deno Khan (Appeal No. 150 of 1994) pleaded sickness of his father. M/s. Deedar Ali (Appeal No. 151 of 1994) and Abdul Waheed (Appeal No. 152 of 1994) pleaded self sickness, despite the fact that they were members of uniformed service of police and they also did not comply with the prescribed procedure for the grant of leave i.e. prior intimation and sanction thereof by the competent Authority. It is noted with regret that the appellants by virtue of their admissions were guilty of desertion from duty which either shows cowardice or lack of interest on their part. This was reprehensible specially in these difficult times when crimes are on increase. It also speaks ill of the selecting authorities who selected them for such Elite Training without proper assessment of their mettle. We do not find any justification in the plea of the counsel for the appellants that the punishment awarded to them viz. removal from service for being unfit to be members of Police Department, was harsh. We, therefore, reject these appeals specially because in reply to the show cause notice issued to them all of them accepted the charge of desertion front duty which is a serious offence specially in case of uniformed forces. The learned A.A.-G. also strongly opposed the proposition for conversion of the above said penalty into a lighter one more so because the appellants have nominal service of a few years and no service benefits would occur to them if compulsory retired.

4. We also did not agree with the proposition put forward by the learned counsel for the appellants that in one or two cases the above penalty of removal from service was converted into minor penalty and as such the penalty awarded to the appellants be reduced, because two wrongs cannot make one right and in legal terms a bad precedent is no precedent. We do not find any weight in the plea of the learned counsel for the defence that 70% of the selectees deserted their duties and training being too harsh. Even if so it speaks ill of the present mettle of the lower subordinates in the police force, which needs to he improved in larger public interest. Any conversion of the above said penalty to a lighter and will amount to encouragement of such un?called for misconduct in uniformed force of police. We therefore. reject and dismiss these appeals with no orders as to cost.

5. Given under our hands and the seal of this Tribunal this 30th day of March, 1995. H.B.T./12/Sr.S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals dismissed.