' KHALID MAHMOOD RAMAY, MEMBER-V.--- This order shall dispose off appeal No,4443/2015 filed by Mr. Yasir Ubaid Ullah, Constable No,4666 of District Police, Lahore against impugned order No,765/PA dated 16.08.2013 issued by Senior Superintendent of Police, Investigation, Lahore, against order No,1172/AC-DIG-INV dated 30.09.2013 issued by DIG Investigation Lahore and against order No,12493/AC-I dated 02.09.2015 issued by CCPO Lahore in their capacity as original, appellate and revisional authorities respectively. The appellant was proceeded against departmentally on the allegation of being absent for 08 days 06 hours and 35 minutes on the one instance vide Daily Diary Report No,41 dated 02.08.2013 and on the second instance for absence of one day 02 hours and 40 minutes vide Daily A Diary Report No,8 dated 03.08.2013. A show cause notice was issued to him and after obtaining his written reply, personal hearing was afforded to the appellant and concluding that the plea of the appellant taken in his defence was not satisfactory, the penalty of dismissal from service under Punjab Police (E&D) , Rules, 1975 was imposed upon him. In result to the departmental appeal filed by him the penalty was converted in to forfeiture of six months approved service whereas he was permanently reinstated into service. Still feeling aggrieved he preferred a revision petition before respondent No,3 with the request to set aside the impugned order but the same was rejected hence this appeal.
2. Process was issued and comments from all three respondents were sought at pre-admission stage.
3. Record as produced by the department, comments of the respondents and appeal along with its annexures were perused and arguments heard.
4. Counsel for the appellant argued that the absence of the appellant was neither intentional nor willful because he became sick and got medical treatment and further that he was advised by the doctor to take rest for 10 days. The appellant informed his Incharge Investigation telephonically as well as through an application along with medical prescription/certificate for grant of medical leave for 10 days. The same stance was taken by the appellant during personal hearing but he was punished without due consideration of his request Made for medical leave. And without holding any regular inquiry, which could substantiate his absence to be willful and intentional.
5. The counsel for the appellant asserted that leave claimed on medical grounds cannot be refused as per Section 20(2) of Revised Leave Rules, 1981 and hence the appellant stands innocent and not at fault in the instant case. In this regard he relied 'upon Government's letter No,SOR- I(S&GAD)2-134/60 dated 28.12.1964 and office Memo No,2578-2637/Legal dated 14.06.2007 issued by Inspector General of Police, Punjab Lahore and asserted that the punishment awarded to him did not commensurate with the quantum of his guilt, if any. He further argued that the factual controversy has not been resolved by holding a regular and full fledged inquiry which the department was under obligation to conduct in view of 2007 SCMR 192, 2006 SCMR 846, PLD 1981
(SC) 335 and 2006 SCMR 434.
6. Learned District Attorney rebutted the arguments forwarded by learned counsel for the appellant and held that in a disciplined force such kind of ill disciplined manners cannot be entertained and tolerated. It was incumbent upon the appellant to seek medical leave by adopting proper and lawful procedure by securing a medical docket by the department in order to get treatment which he failed to do so. He mentioned that already the department has extended quite leniency to the appellant by converting his dismissal into forfeiture of six months approved service and by reinstating him permanently. He further argued that such precedents could leave bad impression of disciplined force.
7. Arguments heard and it is concluded that the punishment awarded to the appellant through the impugned order and even reduced by the appellate authority does not commensurate with the quantum of his guilt because the appellant was sick and he tendered a medical certificate in this regard, during the course of personal hearing to the departmental authority, which was not considered and evaluated before imposing the said punishment. Holding a regular inquiry to remove factual controversies was yet another binding upon the department in view of the case law mentioned by the learned counsel for the appellant as 2007 SCMR 192 and 2006 SCMR 846.
However, it is established that the appellant did not adopt proper procedure for seeking medical leave as laid down in the relevant, rules and hence committed a wrong which makes him compelled to undergo some kind of a minor penalty. Accordingly the instant appeal is partially accepted and his punishment of "forfeiture of six months service" is hereby converted into minor penalty of "Censure" by setting aside the impugned orders mentioned therein.