ARSHAD BIN AHMAD, MEMBER-III. - Appellant Mubasher Ali, while serving as constable in District Police Lines, Faisalabad was served with a show-cause notice dated 9.3.2005 inter alia on the charge of absence from duty w.e.f 5.2.2005. The appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice that he was mentally disturbed and also ill and, therefore, could not be present on duty. Not satisfied with the reply of the appellant the impugned order dated 24.3.2005 was passed by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad/respondent No. 2 whereby he was compulsorily retired from service with immediate effect under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The appellant submitted departmental representations before the appellate authority/respondent No. 1 which was rejected vide impugned order dated 3.5.2006.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that no regular inquiry was held in the matter and the period of absence was declared leave without pay which amounted to condonation of absence. It was also contended that the absence was not wilful and only hardly for 25 days, and that the punishment was too harsh. It was, therefore, prayed that it may be set aside.
3. Learned District Attorney relying on the parawise comments of the respondents opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. Heard the parties and perused the record in detail: Vide the impugned order dated 24.3.2005, the appellant was compulsorily retired from service treating the period of absence as leave without pay. It cannot be termed as condonation of his absence. Had he been dismissed os removed from service it would have amounted to regularization of the period of absence. In this case since the appellant was not removed, or dismissed from service and compulsory retired from service, therefore, by treating the- period of absence as leave without pay, the appellant cannot be treated as reinstated in service. As for the merits of the case, there is no doubt that the punishment although was too harsh yet it is admittedly a fact that the appellant had availed the unsanctioned leave whereas he should have got the leave sanctioned or at-least requested for medical checkup. There is no solid evidence to indicate as to whether the respondents department also took cognizance of his illness and the real cause of absence which would have been sorted out had a regular inquiry been conducted.
5. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is partially accepted. The appellant is reinstated in. Service and the punishment, of compulsory retirement is converted into reduction in pay by two stages for two years. Period spent on compulsory retirement is ordered to be treated as on leave due basis.
No order as to costs.