' The appellant Salamat Masih, Sweeper while working in the Directorate of Staff Development, Wahdat Colony, Lahore was proceeded against under PEEDA Act, 2006 on the charge of willful absence from duty w.e.f 04.10.2012 to 23.10.2012 and 05.11.2012 to on Ward. On the basis of show- cause notice dated 12.12.2012, he was awarded penalty of compulsory retirement from service by Programmer Director vide order dated 14.03.2013. However during the pend ency of instant appeal the appellate authority/Secretary School Education Department vide order dated 07.08.2013 substituted the said penalty into termination from service as the appellant has only 03 years and 10 months service at the time of initiation of proceedings:
2. Learned counsel submits that as per provisions of Section 13(5)(ii) of PEEDA Act, 2006, penalty of dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement from service can only be imposed upon the accused person when the charge of absence for a period more than one year is proved. He states that in the instant case, the absence of the appellant is sufficiently less than one year and as such penalty is too harsh. Further submits that even otherwise appellant's alleged absence was not willful rather due to some forced circumstances and as such to dig out the truth and before awarding major penalty it was necessary to hold a regular inquiry to substantiate the allegations, which was also not done. He argued away that appellant is a class-TV employee and the only bread winner of his family and a.4 such he may be treated considering humanitarian grounds.
3. On the other hand learned District Attorney while negating the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant prayed for dismissal of this appeal as according to him both the impugned orders were passed in accordance with law and facts, resultant sustainable even before this Tribunal.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly no regular inquiry is conducted before passing the impugned order and. Nothing has been mentioned with regard to defense version of appellant duly based on his application for the grant of one month leave. The philosophy of punishment is based on the concept of retribution, which may be either through the method of deterrence or reformation. The Hobble Supreme Court of Pakistan observes in its various judgments that in service matters, extreme penalty for minor acts depriving a person from right of earning defeat the reformatory concept of punishment.
Reliance is placed on 2006 SCM R 60. It is further 'an admitted fact that the attributed absence to the appellant is not continuously for 01 month and 27 days rather it was on two occasions but surprisingly it has been treated as a long absence for a period of 01 month and 27 days (from 04.10.2012 to 23.10.2012 and 05.11.2012 till the issuance of show-cause notice i.e. 12.12.2012) to exaggerate its gravity. In the given scheme the penalty awarded to the appellant i.e termination of service is very harsh and does not commensurate with the alleged guilt of appellant. Obviously in this case the imposition of major penalty not only unjustified but also against the principle of natural justice. Holding of regular inquiry before passing the major penalty was a right of appellant but he is deprived without any visible justification. However, the ground of appeal pleaded u/S. 13(4) of the PEEDA Act, 2006 is misconceived because in Para 3 of the show-cause notice it is clearly mentioned that as to why one or more penalties as prescribed in Section 4 of PEEDA Act, 2006 may not be imposed.
6. In view of above, the appeal in hand is partially accepted, impugned order is modified and termination from service is converted into forfeiture of three years service. The appellant is reinstated into service. The period during which he remained out of service shall be treated as leave of the kind due.