' K.B. ABID (MEMBER-III).--- Brief facts of the case are that appellant Muhammad Ij az Ex-Constable No,7355 Battalion No,4 P.C. Faisalabad was departmentally proceeded under Police E&D Rules, 1975 and show-cause notice dated 19-1-2001 was served to the appellant. Then again other show- cause notice dated 10-2-2001 was also served to the appellant. The charge in both the show-cause notices was absence from duty for a period of 76 days and 11 hours. Despite service of notices through special messenger the appellant had not submitted any reply to the show-cause notices.
He was given the opportunity of personal hearing in the Orderly Room on 24-3-2001 .But he had not appeared. The penalty of dismissal from service was awarded to the appellant on 28-3-2001. The departmental representation against this order was filed before the Commandant P.C.
Farooqabad and rejected on 19-9-2001. Thereafter the appellant had filed the revision petition before the I.G.P which was rejected on 25-5-2006.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has given the arguments in favour of the appellant and stated that the departmental authorities had proceeded against the appellant on 19-1-2001 at that time the RSO-2000 had taken effect which had overridden all the existing E&D Rules. The major penalty of dismissal from service has been inflicted in un-due haste, no legal process was adopted. The Appellate Authority had just relied on the past laxities and did not take judicious view that absence from duty was due to the circumstances beyond control of appellant. The penalty of dismissal from service is too harsh it does not commensurate with the guilt which should have been proved through regular inquiry.
3. Respondents have opposed and stated that the appellant was served two show-cause notices but he had not bothered to furnish the reply to these notices. The appellant had not attended the Orderly Room of Battalion Commander to explain his position. The appellant in past was also dismissed from service. The appellant had again committed misconduct by absenting himself for 76 days. The ex parte action was taken in view of his non-compliance attitude.
4. The revision petition order of the I.G.P. Was passed on 22-10-2005 but on the reverse of the said order it has been found that this order of I.G.P was received by appellant on 25-5-2006. The departmental authorities were responsible for late communication of the revision petition by orders. The charge of misconduct of absence from duty is proved from the record. The appellant has served for many years in the department. The penalty awarded to the appellant is too harsh and it does not commensurate with grayity of the misconduct committed by the appellant. The penalty orders. Of dismissal from service are converted into reduction in pay by one stage in time scale. The appellant is reinstated into service. The period of absence is treated as leave without pay. With these orders, the appeal is disposed of.