MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).--- Appellant Sohail Khan is an operator Constable in Islamabad Territory Police. On 5-10-2010 a show-cause notice was issued to him under the 1975 Police E&D Rules. The charges against him were:- "(a) He while deployed as operator with a senior officer refused to obey the orders and to perform the official duty vides daily diary No,4 dated 4-10-2010.
(b) He left the official duty without any intimation or lawful permission of the officer.
(c) Previously he was involved in such immoral activities, as once he opened the fire of official Pistol during official duty.
(d.) Besides this many times he hesitated to obey the orders of seniors, which shows his ill mentality, disobedient, irresponsible and indiscipline attitude."
2. He submitted is reply to the show-cause notice. Personal hearing was granted to him on 14-10- 2010. On 15-10-2010 he was awarded penalty of forfeiture of two years approved service. His departmental appeal dated 28-10-2010 was rejected on 31-12-2010.
3. According to the appellant on 13-9-2010 Ms. Halena lqbal Saeed had directed him to go with her to NIPA where she had gone for training. He was taken there for 15 days only but had to remain there for 25 days. Due to an emergency he requested other operator by the name of Mr. Babar to replace him. However, reader Shafiq insisted the appellant to continue. It is maintained by the appellant that after giving necessary information to Ms. Halena Iqbal Saeed he reported to Islamabad and in his place Mr. Babar, operator went to Lahore. As regard the other charge relating to firing from pistol, it is submitted by him that he has already been dealt with by the Superintendent of Police vide his order dated 18-11-2009.
4. According to the respondents the appellant had left duty without permission vide Daily Dairy No,4 dated 4-10-2010, therefore, he was awarded penalty of forfeiture strictly with rules.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and departmental representative of respondents. The record has also been perused by us.
6. The first argument of the appellant is that he could not be awarded penalty of forfeiture of approved service. This argument is not correct. The appellant was awarded penalty under the Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, adopted by Islamabad Police. Rule 4(a) relates to minor punishments. The punishment of forfeiture of approved service up to two years is provided. It is one of the minor punishments that can be imposed upon the police officials. Thus the argument that the punishment was not warranted by rules is repelled.
7. Ms. Halena Iqbal Saeed had been selected for NIPA Training. We have enquired from the departmental representative as to under what order or rule she had taken the appellant, who was an operator, with her to Lahore. He has not been able to give any reply nor has he quoted any rule under which a senior officer is permitted to take his/her staff to the training centres. We have further enquired from the departmental representative as to whether any TA/DA was admissible to the appellant for his duty with Ms. Halena Iqbal Saeed during her training in NIPA. His categorical reply was that he was not entitled to any TA/DA. From this statement it is established that the appellant had been taken to Lahore by Ms. Halena lqbal Saeed, without any lawful authority. He was not supposed to accompany her during the period she had remained in NIPA for training. As such the charge that the appellant had refused to perform duty or was reluctant to perform duty at Lahore, was legally not warranted.
8. Even otherwise the appellant has maintained that he had left for Islamabad after seeking permission from Ms. Halena Iqbal Saeed and was replaced by other operator by the name of Baber. We see no reason to disbelieve the appellant in this regard especially when no regular inquiry had been held wherein the truthfulness of his statement could be verified. It could be verified only by Ms. Halena Iqbal Saeed or the moharir. We would have remanded the case for inquiry but are not doing so since rules have not been shown to us under which a subordinate could be taken to another station by the senior officer. An order is passed under some rule. Since no order of appellant's travel had been passed, he could not travel. He was not entitled to TA/DA for want of movement adVance. Hence he had not violated any order.
9. The other charge against the appellant of firing pistol was resolved by the S.P. On 18-11-2009. This fact has not been, controverted. Accordingly we hold this charge could not be framed against him.
10. For the above reasons we hold that the appellant had not committed any illegality or had not violated any rule. He would have been guilty of violation of rules had he been sent with Ms. Halena lqbal Saeed on official duty while she was in NIPA at Lahore for training.
11. In the above circumstances, we hold that a lawful penal order had not been passed against the appellant. The result is that the appeal is accepted and the penalty awarded to the appellant vide order dated 15-10-2010 is set aside.
12. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties shall be informed.