' K.B. ABID (MEMBER-II).--- This service appeal has been filed by appellant Allah Bakhsh Ex-Assistant Sub-Inspector No,134 of District Sargodha against the penalty orders dated 18-4-2006 and 16-8- 2006 passed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 whereby the services of the appellant were dismissed.
2. Briefly stating, the appellant was served the Show-cause Notice No,107/PA dated 16-3-2006 containing the charge that he had absented himself from the duty which was entered into Daily Diary No,7 dated 3-3-2006 of Police Station Chakrala. The Competent Authority had deputed S.-I.
Ghulam Muhammad to serve the show-cause notice upon Assistant Sub-Inspector, Allah Bukhsh No,134 at his residence but he was not available there. As stated in the penalty orders, the said show-cause notice was served to his younger brother and in this connection it was recorded in Daily Dairy Entry No,9, dated 24-3-2006 at Police Station Chakrala District Sargodha. Thereafter on 25-3-2006 S.-I. Nazar Khan was also deputed to visit 'the residence of appellant who had reported that the appellant is not available at his residence and absconding on account of criminal case registered in F.I.R. No,89, dated 27-2-2006. After examination of the contents of the show-cause notice and relevant record, the competent authority observed that he is wilfully absent from his duty without prior permission. The appellant has a negligent and irresponsible attitude. The penalty of dismissal from service was awarded to appellant on account of absence from duty.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant had become seriously 111 and remained under treatment with Medical Officer D.H.Q. Hospital Sargodha who had advised bed rest for (i) 3-3-2006 to 16-3-2006, (ii) 17-3-2006 to 31-3-2006 and (iii) 31-3-2006 to 14-4-2006. The appellant had furnished the medical certificates showing his illness but these were not accepted by the Litigation Officer of District Police Lines, Mianwali. During medical rest, the show-cause notice of absence was issued. Before awarding the punishment of dismissal from service, the matter should have been inquired through regular inquiry. The appellant has been dismissed from service without observing legal formalities.
4. The appeal has been opposed by the respondents and District Attorney. As per version of respondents, the appellant had absented from the duty becaUse after transfer from District Police Lines, Mianwali to Police Station Chakrala, he was duty bound to report at Police Station Chakrala.
On 3-3-2006 but he failed to report his arrival at his new place of posting. As such, he was marked as absent from duty vide D.D. Entry No,7 dated 3-3-2006 of Police Station Chakrala. On account of this absence he was closed to District Police Lines, Mianwali vide order, dated 10-6-2006. The show- cause notice was issued to him and S.-I. Ghulam Muhammad was deputed to serve the show- cause notice which was delivered to his younger brother. It was also reported that the appellant is involved in case F.I.R. No,89, dated 27-2-2006 due to which he was absconding and avoiding his arrest. The absence of appellant is intentional. In support of absence no certificate was provided by the appellant. In case, he had sent any medical certificates, he should have sent reply to the show- cause notice. The absence from duty was proved from the record. The appellant had not furnished any reply due to which the penalty was awarded to him.
5. Arguments of the counsel heard, record perused. In the Tribunal proceedings, the departmental representative was asked to show the proof regarding service of the show-cause notice. There was no acknowledgment or receipt of the show-cause notice by his brother Umer Draz. There is no copy of the Daily Diary Entry No,9, dated 24-3-2006 made by the process-server in Police Station Jhal Chakian. As per -rules the process-server should have delivered the show-cause notice in the presence of two notables of area. The service of show-cause notice was not done in prescribed manner. The plea of appellant for not giving the fair opportunity of defence is correct. If illness of appellant and medical certificate was afterthought, it should have been verified from M.O.
Concerned and passed necessary orders. The orders passed by Authority were in haste and without verification of illness from competent medical authority. The only charge mentioned by the departmental authorities is absence from the duty without prior permission from the competent authority. In the penalty orders dated 18-4-2006 another charge for involvement in F.I.R. 89 dated 27-2-2006 have also been mentioned. The competent authority cannot penalize appellant on this charge because there was no mention of this charge in show-cause notice dated 16-3-2006. The civil servant cannot be penalized on the charge which was not conveyed to him. The competent authority even had not bothered to call the appellant for affording the opportunity of personal hearing before passing the final penalty orders. The absence period is just for 45 days. The appellant has been penalized without proper service of show-cause notice, without giving the fair opportunity of defence and without consideration of the fact that he remained ill. In this connection, the medical rest advised by the D.H.Q. Hospital, Sargodha was presented before the Appellate Authority but no consideration was given by the departmental authorities for leave on medical grounds. -.The- penalty awarded to the appellant is too harsh. The orders of departmental authorities are modified to the extent of withholding of one increment for the period of one year.
The appellant is reinstated into service. The absence period as given in the show-cause notice will be treated as leave of the kind due and other period of dismissal from service to reinstatement into service will also be treated as leave of the kind due. With these orders, the appeal is disposed of. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.