Mukhtar Ahmad Shaheen (contesting respondent) was appointed as gunman in Directorate of National Savings Multan Region Multan. In the year 2012 on the charge of absent from duty he was proceeded under the Government Servant (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 and in consequence thereof he was dismissed from service vide an order dated 02.05.2012. He filed a writ petition (10255 of 2012) that was allowed vide order dated 08.02.2016 by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the authority to hold fresh inquiry and to conclude it within a period of three months. When direction of this Court was not complied with the contesting respondent preferred a Criminal Original (325 of 2016) which was disposed of on 22.06.2016 for the reason that contesting respondent was reinstated in service by the department vide an order dated 16.06.2016.
2. Later on department again dismissed the contesting respondent from service vide an order dated 01.09.2016 which was assailed through writ petition (13438 of 2016) and that was allowed vide an order dated 03.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber and the same has been impugned now through instant Intra Court Appeal.
3. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and we have also examined the relevant documents attached with the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for appellant contended that as from earlier department where contesting respondent had been serving the report was received about his character that he was dismissed on the charge of misconduct, therefore, he was dismissed again on 01.09.2016. We are not convinced with this contention on various reasons which are as under:-
(i) Contesting respondent was appointed on 22.09.2003 and initially letter for verification of his character written by the department was on 29.03.2004 which was responded on 08.042004 by mentioned that character not assessed.
(ii) The department thereafter kept silent and after passing of about 7 years, again wrote a letter on 09.01.2011 to the earlier department from where the reply was received on 16.06.2011 about dismissal of contesting respondent from the said Organization.
(iii) If the above said letter, showing the dismissal of contesting respondent was earlier in field still question is that why on 16.06.2011 that was after 5 years of letter dated 16.06.2011 contesting respondent was reinstated in service?
(iv) Contesting respondent has served the current department for about 17 years and he is having unblemished record as conceded by the learned counsel for appellant.
(v) The order dated 01.09.2016, therefore, on the face of it appears to be malafide having no substance at all and could not sustain.
(vi) In the appointment letter issued to the contesting respondent on 22.09.2003 there was nothing in black and white indicating that later on his service can be terminated because of report to be received with regard to his character hence on this ground dismissal of service of contesting respondent was surprise.
(vii) It is important that in the letter dated 16.06.2016 when contesting respondent was reinstated only the question that was outcome of absent from duty was kept open. To our mind said outcome when contesting respondent was reinstated at the most could be that intervening period had to be with or without leave pay.
5. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber and find that after taking into consideration each and every aspect of the matter the writ petition filed by contesting respondent was rightly allowed and there is no reason for us to interfere in the same hence this Intra Court Appeal is dismissed.