' This judgment will decide an appeal filed by the present appellant under the provisions of Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 against the orders dated 03.07.2012 and 28.07.2014.
2. Arguments heard Record perused.
3. On 03.07.2012, AIG/Administration Punjab, Lahore by invoking the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 inflicted major punishment of dismissal from service upon the appellant on account of his absence from duty for 93 days. 15 hours and 13 minutes as reflected in Para No, 6 of the impugned order.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed his departmental appeal, which was dismissed by Inspector General of Police Punjab ride order dated 28.07 2014 being time barred for 01 year. 10 months and 16 days, hence this appeal.
4. Appraisal of the basic order dated 03.07.2012 would manifests that Muhammad Asif Ansari, DSP/PHP District Gujranwala was appointed as inquiry officer to carry out regular inquiry against the present appellant, who after conducting the same, submitted his report to the AIG/Admn.
Punjab on 31.12.2011 with an observation that appellant belonged to middle class family and look after his family on the basis of his job/employment. The inquiry officer further observed that period of absence of the appellant was 13 days, 21 hours and 05 minutes and recommended that warning should be given to him so that he be careful in future and his absence be treated as without pay.
5. The AIG/Admn. Punjab after perusal of the inquiry report and previous service record of the appellant inflicted major punishment of dismissal from service upon him. The inquiry report which has been submitted by the representative of the respondents is available and has been perused by this Tribunal time and again and feel no hesitation to say that the inquiry officer failed to conduct regular inquiry in accordance with the law as enshrined in Section 10 of the PEEDA Act, 2006 and the same is not enough for inflicting major punishment of dismissal from service. In view of Section 7(f)(ii), the punishment impugned seemed very harsh.
6. The punishing authority also kept in view the previous titillates of the appellant for awarding punishment and it is well settled law that previous titillates of civil servant could not be made justification for the future penalties particularly when omission had already be adjudicated upon administratively. I am fortified in my above from the case of Agha Mukhtar Ali reported in 1998 PLC (C.S) 648.
7. It is also noticed that being aggrieved from the impugned order, the appellant was constrained to file departmental appeal, which was sent by post, UMS receipt No, 152 dated-30.07.2012 and the same was received by the office of the Additional Inspector General of Police Punjab CPO Office on 01.08.2012 under Diary No, 12770. In this regard, the diary register produced by the representative also corroborates the version of the appellant regarding filing of his departmental appeal on 01.08.2012. Copy of the page of the said register has been retained in the instant service appeal.
8. Annexure-C is a certificate issued by Assistant Manager E.P Centre Gujranwala GPO, which also confirms that the appellant booked UMS No, 38791187 dated 30.07.2012 in the name of the Additional Inspector General of Police Punjab C.P.O Lahore from his office. The U.M.S receipt dated 30,07.2012 and Annexure-C provice me an irresistible presumption that the appellant being aggrieved from the basic order dated 03.07.2012 transmitted his departmental appeal before Respondent No, 2 in time, hence the observation given by Respondent No 2 with respect to filing of the departmental appeal beyond the period of limitation seems arbitrary and fanciful, hence can not sustain.
9. At the cost of repetition, it is to say that absence of the appellant was less than a year and awarding of major punishment of dismissal from service seemed very harsh in view of Section 7(f)
(i) of the PEEDA Act, 2006. In the light of what has been discussed above, impugned orders are set aside, appellant is reinstated in service. However as he remained absent from his duty for less then a year, hence the impugned i.e dismissal from service is converted into fine of one month basic pay as enshrined in Section 4(1)(a) of the PEEDA Act, 2006. Intervening period shall be treated as leave of the kind due. With this observation, this appeal is disposed off. Be consigned.
(R.A.)