' K.B. ABID (MEMBER-IV).---Saghir-ud-Din Babar Ex-Constable No,683 was served show-cause notice, dated 16-1-2002 on account of allegation that he was absent from Police Station Sadar Gujranwala without obtaining leave and permission from Competent Authority. The total period of absence as shown in D.D. Report Nos.47 and 52 was 53 days. Appellant had not furnished any reply to the show-cause notice. The departmental authority called the appellant in Orderly Room for personal hearing but he did not turn up. The absence period w,e,f, 2-9-2002 was also reported by Moharrar. By taking in view these reports and facts, the Authority observed that the official is habitual absentee and he has nothing to say in his defence. The S.P. City Division Gujranwala by passing ex parte orders, dismissed the appellant from service. The departmental representation was filed before the DIG Police, Gujranwala wherein it was pleaded that the allegation of wilful absence is incorrect and not-based on facts. The Authority should have probed the matter through Enquiry Officer. The appellant also pleaded before the DIG Police Gujranwala that he has been punished on ex parte basis which is against natural justice. Factually, the father of the appellant was seriously sick and he had to attend him in serious condition. The DIG Police Gujranwala by taking a lenient view converted the order of dismissal from service into reduction in pay by two stages. The period of absence was treated as extraordinary leave without pay. Counsel for the appellant has argued that medical certificate of father of the appellant was reported to the higher officers. The period of absence reported by the respondents is incorrect. The total absence of the appellant is from 18-11-2001 to 14-12-2001 and from 19-12-2001 to 121-2002. The orders passed by the departmental authorities are not sustainable under the law because these are outcome of unlawful proceedings conducted by Authorities. The absence was beyond the control of the appellant and the reason of absence was in the knowledge of officers. The appellant remained busy in medical treatment of his ailing father. Before passing the major penalty orders, regular enquiry should have been conducted. The appellant committed first lapse and the appellant deserves the lenient view.
2. Respondents have opposed and stated that the penalty has been imposed by taking a lenient view. The appellant is himself responsible for the penalty because he had absented from the duty without obtaining leave or permission from the Authority. Appellant was given opportunity by calling in the orderly room at various occasions but he did not turn up.
3. Contents of the appeal and comments of the department perused. The Competent Authority has not given any comments about the request of the appellant for any leave. The Appellate Authority while considering the facts and orders passed by the S.P. City Division Gujranwala should have considered the defence point of the appellant that he was condemned unheard. The departmental authorities have not furnished the specific proof regarding the service of the notice and other official letters in connection with the personal hearing. The plea of the appellant for condemnation unheard is correct. The appellant had not committed misconduct wilfully and it was his first lapse.
While deciding the departmental representation of the appellant the department should have given due consideration of request made by appellant. The penalty is too harsh and modified to the extent that his pay would be reduced by one stage in the time scale. The period 'of absence shall be treated as leave of the kind due. Disposed of.