Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was proceeded against departmentally under Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1999 on the following charges:
(i) On 18.05.2015, two heinous occurrences took place which led to the registration of cases FIR No, 104 dated 18.05.2015 u/S. 392 PPC PS Sadar Hasilpur and FIR No, 105 dated 18.05.2015 u/S. 302/392/324/34, PPC PS Sadar Hasilpur. During second occurrence, the District Police Officer, Bahawalpur rushed to the spot where he was found wandering in civvies. The Regional Police Officer, Bahawalpur called his explanation vide his office No, 804/PS, dated 29.05.2015. He submitted reply thereto, which was sent to DPO BahawaIpur for views/ comments. DPO Bahawalpur submitted comments in which he concluded that reply of accused DSP was totally unsatisfactory and he was fond, of leave and was least interested in the performance of his official duties.
(ii) He failed to get finalized the investigation of case FIR No, 27/15 dated 21.1.2015 u/S. 302 PPC PS Sadar Hasilpur and recommended for change of investigation on the application of Mr. Muhammad Yousaf, complainant of the case.
An enquiry into the matter was conducted by Respondent No, 3 i,e, DPO Bahawalnagar and astonishingly the enquiry office himself vide his Order No, 2977-78/PA, dated 9.5.2016 awarded the appellant penalty of "Withholding of promotion for a period of one year". Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred departmental appeal before Respondent No, 1, i,e, Home Secretary, Punjab, who vide Order No, I IO-III/2-G, 17, dated 30.10.2017 rejected the same. Hence, this appeal.
2. Arguments heard and case file perused. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that as far as charge of wandering in civvies when DPO Bahawalpur reached at the spot of occurrence concerns, it was about 4:45 p.m. when Malik Abdul Humid, Sadar Anjuman Tajran Hasilpur telephonically informed the appellant that three unidentified armed persons snatched Rs,50,000/- and mobile from a shop situated in Chak No, 58/F and fled away. Incidentally by that time after the office hours, the appellant was in civvies and he without wasting time to wear uniform, rushed to the spot alongwith his driver and gunman. Learned counsel for the appellant added that such quick response and vigilance of the appellant warranted reward, but surprisingly he has been penalized for this act. Regarding the other charge, learned counsel for the appellant explained that the appellant not being DSP Investigation was not the incharge of the investigation and as per provisions of Police Order, 2002, he cannot interfere in investigation, rather it was the DSP Investigation, who recommended for it and the appellant only reported that there was no objection for transfer of - investigation of the case.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that even otherwise the penalty awarded to the appellant does not commensurate with the quantum of guilt attributed to him. With these submissions, learned counsel for the appellant stressed for acceptance of the instant appeal by setting aside the impugned orders.
4. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney narrated that all the codal and legal formalities were fulfilled by the authority before awarding the penalty to the appellant, who earned bad name for the department and hence he deserves no leniency.
5. Consideration having been given to the arguments put forth by both the parties, I am inclined to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. After receiving the information, the appellant rushed towards the place of occurrence. This act on the part of the appellant must by taken in a positive way by the departmental authorities, rather to penalized him on the basis of technicalities of wearing the uniform or not and that too after the office hours.
Although, being member of a discipline force, it was incumbent upon the appellant to follow the protocols, but the disciplinary protocols may also be relaxed in certain special circumstances.
Regarding the other allegation, explanation given by the learned counsel for the appellant is prima facie plausible that the DSP Investigation being Incharge of Investigation, recommended for change of investigation and not the appellant.
6. Besides all above, I am of the view that even otherwise the quantum of punishment awarded to the appellant does not commensurate with the gravity of charges attributed to him. The philosophy of punishment is based on the concept of retribution, which may be either through the method of deterrence or reformation. The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan observes in its various judgments that in service matters, extreme penalty for minor acts would defeat the reformatory concept of punishment. Reliance is placed on 2006 SCM R 60. For the forgoing reasons, the instant appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. However, the appellant is directed to be careful in future. Disposed of.