Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Constable was issued a show cause notice dated 20.5.2005 on the following charge; You while posted at Traffic Lines absented yourself from duty without leave or any kind of permission from the competent authority. Hence, your absence have been recorded in the Roznamcha vide DD No, 22 dated 20.4.2005. He came back on 16.5.2005 after an absence period of 25 days, 16 hours,"
The appellant submitted reply to show cause notice and explain his position but the competent authority did not find explanation of the appellant satisfactory and awarded him major penalty of dismissal from service, vide impugned order dated 15.06.2005. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed a departmental appeal before Respondent No, 2, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 13.02.2007. Thereafter, the appellant filed revision petition before the Respondent No, 3, which was also rejected vide impugned order dated 27.10.2009. Hence, the present appeal.
2. The counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been awarded harsh major penalty of dismissal from service on the charge of absence of 25 days by the departmental authorities, whereas, the same authorities reinstated some colleagues of the appellant whose absence perioa was more than 25 days and as such the appellant has been given a discriminatory treatment, which is violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. In support of his contention he has placed on record Order No, 12729-33/EA-III (1109) dated 15.05.2009, passed by Respondent No, 2 in respect of appeal preferred by Constable Majid Sarfraz No, 3131/5142 of City Traffic Gujranwala, who remained absent for 62 days due to illness but the Respondent No, 2 reinstated him. The learned counsel for the appellant also placed another Order No, 28-47/PS dated 04.07,2009, issued by the Respondent No, 3, whereby Constable Muhammad Arif No, 3113/5143 who remained absent on different occasions for 12 days, 16 hours, 17 days, 31 days 41 days, was reinstated into service.
3. The respondents and Learned District Attorney opposed the contentions of the counsel for the appellant. It was contended that the appellant remained willfully absent from duty for 25 days and as such the departmental authorities rightly proceeded against the appellant. He stated that willful absent is proved from record and as such no regular inquiry is necessary to hold into the matter and as such there is no infirmity involved in the orders of the departmental authorities.
4. Arguments advanced by the parties heard and available record gone through.
5. The record reveals that the appellant has been awarded major penalty of dismissal from service on the charge of absence for 25 days, whereas, two colleagues of the appellants, as mentioned in Para 3 above, who were also awarded major penalty of dismissal from service on the charge of absence of more than 25 days were reinstated by the Respondents No, 2 and 3, which is a clear violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan. It is well settled principle of law that all the equally placed persons should be given equal treatment and not otherwise.
6. In view of the above discussions, I accept the present appeal and set aside the impugned orders dated 15.06.2005, 10.02.2007/13.02.2007 and 27.10.2009 passed by the respondents respectively. The appellant is reinstated into service. The intervening period is treated as leave of the kind due.