JUSTICE (R) ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA, CHAIRMAN, J.-- Muhammad Hussain, appellant, a Constable in Okara Police, absented from duty for two months and 9 days. He was issued a show-cause notice.
Neither he replied to the show-cause notice nor did he appear before the competent authority in the orderly room on 12.9.1994. Again he was summoned to appear on 19.9.1994 but he again did not like to appear and consequently, the competent authority proceeded against him on ex parte basis and passed dismissal order on 19.9.1994. He filed appeal before the D.I.G, which was dismissed being the barred on 9.8.1997. He filed mercy petition before the Inspector General of Police which too was rejected on 27.7.1998.
2. The appellant has challenged all these orders on the ground that his absence was not designed or deliberate. He was ailing and was unable to move. He had produced medical certificates issued by medical attendant but no heed was paid to these certificates; that no notice was never served upon him, as such, he was not expected to appear before the competent authority.
3. Department has controverted the assertions made in the Memo, of Appeal and have claimed that his record shows that he is an habitual absentee and never took the service seriously.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated his submissions made in the Memo, of Appeal and claimed that his dismissal was totally unwarranted as he had not been served for appearance before the competent authority. Even otherwise, if the medical certificate was not believed, the department ought to have constituted medical board for verification of the alleged disease which has never been done.
5. Learned DA on the other hand, has argued that the appeal is the-barred and ought to be dismissed on this score alone. According to him, the appellant was not interested in retaining the police service, as such he had rightly been ousted from service.
6. Arguments have been heard and record has been gone through with the help of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. There is nothing on record to show that he was ever properly served to appear before the Superintendent of Police. The record shows that the process was given to the Uncle of the appellant, namely, Abdul Rehman, but the appellant claims that neither his Uncle nor any one else informed him of the notice issued by the competent authority, in support of his contentions he has sworn an affidavit. There is no counter-affidavit from the other side which could have refuted the assertions made by the appellant.
8. In this view of the matter, it is not established on record that he was properly served, as such, there was no valid ground for proceeding against him on ex parte basis. A perusal of record also shows that although he had been absenting for a number of occasions but he had earned commendation certificates and rewards also.
9. Appeal is, therefore, accepted and the appellant is reinstated in service with immediate effect, intervening period shall be treated as leave of the kind due.
10. The competent authority shall be at liberty to proceed against the appellant afresh in accordance with law.