1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

R. 5--North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974), S. 4 Dismissal of police constable for absence, without leave--Although show-case notice was served on appellant yet no enquiry was conducted--Rule 5 of Police". Rules, 1975 envisaged Summary Police Proceedings and General Police Proceedings--Where Authority was of the view that General Police Proceedings were to be conducted, accused employee would have to be informed in writing and given an opportunity of showing cause--Summary proceedings could not be adopted by Authority in case of dismissal from service--Where appellant had been dismissed from service for his absence, such fact could not be assessed without recording evidence, pro and contra--Satisfaction of Authority must be objective and based on valid and sound reasoning--Appellant was not only deprived of opportunity to defend himself but punishment was also excessive as compared to his act/omission--Appeal against dismissal from service was accepted and back benefits were allowed to petitioner. Khial Muhammad Khattak for Appellant. A Gul Biland Khan, Prosecuting Inspector for Respondents. MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant Masam Khan, has brought the present appeal against the impugned order of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 vide which he was not only dismissed from service but his appeal for re-instatement was also rejected. According to him he was suffering from Jaundice and unable to attend to his duties. In the meanwhile the proposed punishment was taken against him. Respondents denied the allegations. Record perused and the arguments heard. There is no denying the fact that appellant was proceeded against under the provisions of the Police Rules, 1975. A show-cause notice was served upon him by respondent No. 2, to which the appellant responded. It is to the effect that he is suffering from acute Jaundice and the doctors have asked him to live apart from his family. Prior to it his wife was also the patient of the said disease. He attended her and got the said disease in return. His absence was not intentional. On receipt of the reply instead of conducting an enquiry against the appellant, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order of dismissal on 13-2-1988. His appeal before respondent No. 1 also met the same fate. It does not show that whether the appellant was heard in person or not. The police record produced would show that it contains the certificate of illness issued by one doctor Tila Muhammad, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Dargsi Malakand Agency. The Medical Officer recommended complete rest for the appellant for one month from 15- l2-1937 14-1-1988. The allegation of the appellant was serious illness. This fact could only be ascertained through an enquiry into the allegation. Rule 5 deals with the punishment proceedings. There are two types of punishments i.e. Summary Police Proceedings and General Police Proceedings. In case the authority is of the view that Gc:nCaa1 P0tice Proceedings be tonsured, the accused will be informed of t:1C; proposed action in writing and will be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause. There is proviso attached with the rule and that is when the interest and security of the State is involved. However, in case of dismissal from service the summary proceedings cannot be adopted by him. In the instant case the appellant was dismissed from service for his absence. This fact could not be assessed without recording the evidence, pro and contra. The satisfaction of the authority must be objective and based on valid and sound reasoning. The punishment must be compatible with the offence committed by a Government servant. In the instant case not only the appellant was deprived of the requisite opportunity to defend himself but also the punishment was excessive than his act/omission. The impugned order itself treated absence of the appellant as leave without pay from 15-12-1987 to 14-1-1988. We are, in the circumstances, constrained to accept the appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs and file be consigned to the record room. All the back benefits are allowed to the appellant. AA./99/Sr. N Appeal accepted.