' Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was proceeded against departmentally under PEEDA Act, 2006 on the following charges: ' It has come to the adverse notice that he while deputed as gunman with Deputy Commandant, Punjab Constabulary, on 20.05.2010, he and Driver Constable Muhammad Aslam proceeded to petrol pump for filing fuel in official jeep, while suddenly met with a road accident near Dharam Pura Bridge, Lahore. He slipped away from the spot showing cowardice alone along the vehicle and driver and absented himself from duty w,e,f, 20.05.2010 to 01.06.2010 for 12 days, 04 hours & 30 minutes without any intimation or lawful permission of the competent authority.
' During the course of preliminary enquiry conducted by DSP/DBC Battalion No, 1 PC Lahore, the above mentioned charges have been proved and stern departmental action has also been recommended against him."
' The appellant was served upon show-cause notice dated 1.6.2010 containing the above allegations and resultantly vide order dated 15.6.2010, Respondent No, 1 awarded him major penalty of "Dismissal from Service". Feeling aggrieved the appellant preferred departmental appeal before, Respondent No, 2 who vide order dated 20.06.2011 converted the penalty of "dismissal from, service" into "Forfeiture of five years approved service". Thereafter, the appellant filed revision petition before Respondent No, 3, which was decided vide order dated 15.03.2013 and the penalty was further reduced to "Forfeiture of two years approved service" but to the dissatisfaction of the appellant, hence this appeal.
2. Arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney have been heard. Contents of memorandum of appeal, parawise comments offered by the respondents and record as produced by the department have also been perused.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that on 20.05.2010 while performing duty as gunman with Deputy Commandant, Punjab Constabulary the appellant along with Driver Constable Muhammad Aslam was going to Petrol Pump for filling fuel in the official vehicle and near Dharam Pura Bridge, Lahore the official vehicle met with a road accident as a result of which at least one person was killed and a mob gathered on the spot, whereupon the driver constable slipped away by leaving vehicle. Learned counsel added that the situation on the spot constrained the appellant to leave the place of occurrence, as his life was in danger. He further added that the allegation of absence from duty is absolutely baseless. Neither the appellant absented from duty, nor remained away for the alleged period, rather on the very next day, i,e, 21.05.2010 he appeared before S.P. Hqrs but he did not allow the appellant to resume duty, delivered him show-cause notice and subsequently dismissed him from service. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned orders are based upon mere conjectures and surmises, thus liable to be struck down.
4. The learned District Attorney argued that all the legal formalities were fulfilled while proceeding against the appellant. He held that conduct of the appellant remained highly objectionable as the appellant should have remained present on the spot and tackle the situation. He further argued that in his reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant has himself admitted his guilt that he ran away from the place of occurrence leaving behind the official vehicle. Learned District Attorney submitted that the department cannot afford such like irresponsible and careless attitude of the appellant, however, he has already been treated leniently by the departmental appellate as well as revisional authority and the penalty of "dismissal from service" initially awarded to the appellant has been reduced to "Forfeiture of two years approved service". With these submission, learned District Attorney stressed for dismissal of the instant appeal.
5. Patient hearing has been given to the parties and it is inclined to agree with the submissions made by learned District Attorney that the appellant compassionate measures have already been taken by the authorities while deciding the departmental appeal as well as the revision petition of the appellant. It has been observed that the appellant was initially awarded major penalty of "Dismissal from Service" by the competent authority, later on which has been reduced to mere "Forfeiture of two years approved service", which is quite commensurate vis a vis the quantum of guilt of the appellant and the Universal principle that "Guilt must not be left unpunished" is very much attracted in the instant case. Being member of disciplined force, the appellant, was under moral as well as legal, obligation to stay at the place of occurrence, to handle the situation and try his level best to save the lives of the injured as well as protect the official property, i,e, the vehicle. It can also not be ignored that a human life was lost in the accident. In view of what has been discussed above, there is no valid reason to set aside the penalty of "Forfeiture of two years approved service" awarded to the appellant by Respondent No,
1. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands rejected being meritless.