2019 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

GULZAR AHMED, J.

The petitioner was proceeded against for remaining absent from duty for a period of about 16 months and vide order dated 24.12.2012, he was dismissed from service. The petitioner preferred departmental appeal, which being not responded, filed service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. By the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2017, the Tribunal dismissed the service appeal of the petitioner.

2. Learned ASC for the petitioner has contended that imposition of penalty of dismissal on the petitioner for remaining absent from duty is harsh in that the reason assigned by the petitioner for remaining absent was justified by him but neither the department accepted the same nor by the Tribunal. He contended that petitioner had applied for leave for 720 days, which was not allowed to him and owing to Tribal dispute the petitioner and his family members being in danger, he has to leave place of report and thus was unable to report for duty. Learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment has not accepted such explanation of the petitioner on the ground that he has not lodged any FIR in respect of threat to the life of the petitioner and his family members.

3. Be that as it may, it has been stated by the learned ASC for the petitioner that in cases where railway employees remained absent from duty for three years, minor penalty have been imposed and that the Tribunal also in its reported judgment in the case of Asif v. Works Manager (Diesel Shed), Pakistan Railway, Karachi Cantt. and others (PLJ 2016 Tr.C (Services) 190), has converted major penalty into minor penalty of stoppage of increments for a period of two years.

4. Having heard learned ASC for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, we also find that imposition of major penalty on the petitioner that of dismissal was not proportionate to the misconduct of the petitioner more so when Railway Authorities themselves had been taking lenient view on such matters. The fact that petitioner remained absent on account of threat to his life and life of his family members, though is not substantiated by the petitioner through documentary proof but such fact has also not been disputed by the respondents. It was also not disputed that petitioner had unblemished record of 35 years of service with the respondents and this was the first occasion on which petitioner remained absent.

5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider that punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner is quite disproportionate in the face of misconduct of remaining absent more so when the petitioner has 35 years of service with the respondents and the reason for his remaining absent is not disputed by the respondents themselves. We have proposed that the penalty of dismissal from service be converted into that of compulsory retirement, which was conceded by the counsel for the petitioner.

6. In the circumstances, this petition is converted into appeal and is partly allowed. The penalty of dismissal from service is converted into that of compulsory retirement from the date of his dismissal i.e. 24.12.2012. MWA/Z-9/SC Order accordingly.