ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J .---The petitioners filed instant constitutional petition with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Orders No. 1393-99 dated 9.3.2020 and No. 2447 dated 21.4.2020 passed by respondent No.1 may kindly be set aside and petitioner may kindly be re-instated in service from the date of his dismissal i.e. 9.3.2020 with all back benefits in the interest of justice and equity .
Any other relief deem fit and appropriate may also be awarded"
2. Facts of the instant petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Naib Qasid in the office of District and Sessions Judge, Quetta vide Order No.44 82-86 dated 20th November , 2008. It was case of the petitioner that due to ailment of his two sons the petitioner remained - absent from his duty and vide order No. 1393-99 dated 9th March, 2020 he was dismissed from service. Whereafter , the petitioner filed departmental appeal which met with the same fate vide order No. 2447 dated 21st April, 2020.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as Naib Qasid (BPS-2) vide Order No.448 2-86 dated 20th November , 2008. The record reflected that due to unsatisfactory reply vide order No. 5063 dated 23rd December , 2008 warning was issued by respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 vide order No. 821 dated 14th March, 2009 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner on account of absent from duty for three days. Again warning was issued to petitioner vide order No. 902 dated 19th March, 2009. It appears that vide Order No. 1384 dated 4th April, 2011 show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner for his absence. On 27th April, 2011 warning was issued and warned to be careful and punctual in future.
On 27th April, 2011 due to absence for three days show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner . The respondent No. 1 vide order No. 1817-20 dated 30th April, 2011 stopped monthly salary of the petitioner . Where after, on 21st May, 2011 on the direction of respondent No. 1 the salary of the petitioner was released. Again on 21st June, 2011 show-cause notice vide No. 2880 dated 21.6.201 1 was issued to the petitioner on account of absence from duty on 2.6.201 1. On the direction of responden t No. 1 vide letter No. 5452 dated 5th October , 2011 the salary of the petitioner was released. The respondent No. 1 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner and others vide order No. 6535-39 dated 26th November , 2012. On 24.12.2012 warning was issued to the petitioner vide letter No. 7461. The respondent No. 1 vide order No. 7079-82 dated 3rd July, 2014 issued order for deduction of one day pay of petitioner . and others on account of absence from duty. Show-cause notice No. 8893 dated 18th September , 2014 was issued to the petitioner on account of his wilful absence, warning was issued by the Authority with direction to remain careful in future. Due to 21 days absence from duty from February , 2015 to May, 2015 the competent authority issued show-cause notice No. 3435 dated 7th May, 2015 to the petitioner and vide order No. 3627 dated 14th May, 2015 (21) days pay from monthly salary was deducted due to wilful absence from duty. The respondent No. 1 was pleased to recall his order regarding deduction of twenty one days pay vide order No. 4036-39 dated 27th May, 2015. On 4th March, 2016 due to six days wilful absence from duty the salary of the petitioner was deducted vide order No. 1463-66. The Civil Judge-I, Quetta vide letter No. 887 dated 25th February , 2016 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner for his wilful absence from duty since 19.2.2016 till 25th February , 2016. The respondent No. 1 vide No. 766-70 dated 8th March, 2018 ordered for deduction of salary of the petitioner of 17 days and vide order No. 1162-63 dated 28th March, 2018 the monthly salary of the petitioner was stopped. The respondent No. 1 vide order No. 1282-86 dated 7th April, 2018 ordered for deduc tion of three days pay from the salary of the petitioner . The respondent No. 1 vide No. 1723 dated 28th April, 2018 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner on account of three days wilful absence from duty. The respondent No. 1 vide order No. 2907-1 1 dated 16th July, 2018 ordered for deduction of five days pay from the salary of the petitioner due to his wilful absence from duty. Again vide order No. 3288-92 dated 31st July, 2018 the respondent No. 1 ordered for deduction of 29 days pay from the salary of the petitioner . On continuous wilful absence from duty for fifteen days in the month of July, 2019, the respondent No.1 vide order No. 6651 dated 29th July , 2019 issued last warning to the petitioner .
4. The respondent No. 1 vide order No. 1393-99 dated 9th March, 2020 on the report of Inquiry Committee (Additional District and Sessions Judge-V , Quetta/Chairman Departmental Inquiry Committee) vide No. 87 dated 3rd March, 2020 terminate the service of the petitioner . The petitioner filed departmental appeal against the order dated 1393-99 dated 9th March, 2020 before District and Sessions Judge, Quetta, who was pleased to dismiss the same vide order No. 2447 dated 21st April, 2020.
5. The conduct of the petitioner shows that he was wilful absentee.
The conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming. As per Report the Inquiry Officer/Additional District and Sessions Judge-V , Quetta/Chairman inquiry Comm ittee called the record of bio-metric attendance of petitioner which shows that the petitioner continuously remained absent from his duty. The concerned Officer repeatedly issued show- cause notices to the petitioner for his wilful absence, but he remained un-careful and repeated the same. The departmental record reflected that despite warning by respondent No. 1 for being careful in future, show-cause notices and deduction of salary the petitioner did not mend his ways and remained absent. It is the duty of the employee to show himself as good employee and dutiful. The reply of the petitioner is unsatisfactory . The petitioner has failed to satisfy the Inquiry Officer through tangible and satisfactory evidence. Reliance is placed on the case of Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Capital City Police Officer Peshawar v. Shahid, 2020 SCMR 981, wherein it was held: "2. The learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa contends that once the allegation of unauthorized absence from duty stood proved against the Respondent and the same having not been seriously disputed before the Tribunal, there was no power vested in the Tribunal to modify the penalty of dismissal from service to that of withholding of two increments for a period of two years for which the Tribunal has not cited any law, but it has just whimsically stated that the penalty imposed upon the Respo ndent was harsh. What are the parameters of imposition of major and minor penalties, under what circumstances such penalties are to be imposed and what law governs the imposition of such penalties, the Tribunal has not taken trouble of examining the same or making any observations in that regard in the impugned judgment. Just whimsically stating that the punishment is harsh could not be made basis by the Tribunal to modify the penalty imposed by the competent authority . Learned ASC for the Respondent has also not been able to show that the Tribunal while modifying the penalty has acted in accordance with law , in that, no law in this regard whatsoever was cited by him.
3. For what has been discussed above, we find that the Tribunal by interfering with the penalty imposed by the department has exceeded from its jurisdiction more so when the respondent was employed in a disciplined force where he could not have remained absent from duty for a long period of 06 months and 03 days as noted in the impugned judgment. We find that the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal suffers from illegality and is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The same is therefore set aside, the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the Respondent by the Department vide office order dated 04.03.2014 is restored and the present appeal is allowed."
In view of above the petitioner being bereft of merit is dismissed.