ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). -Muhammad Nawaz, ex---Constable No. 903, of Faisalabad District, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has im--pleaded the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodh3 Range, Sargodha and the Superin--tendent of Police, Faisalabad as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the order dated 14-2-1980 passed by the respondent No. 3, order dated 23-6-1981 passed by respondent No. 2 and the order dated 3-8-1982 passed by the respondent No. 1 be set aside. It has also been prayed that the appellant be directed to continue in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the Police Department as Constable' in the year 1976. In the year 1980, while the appellant was posted in Traffic Staff, Faisalabad was selected for special duty course which was to commence at P. T. C., Sihala w.e.f. 11-1-1980. Necessary intimation about his selection was sent to Traffic Office where the constable was posted on 6-1- 1980 at 3-30 p.m., but the appellant deliberately absented himself from the evening Roll Call and did not turn up till 7-1-1980, with the hope that during his absence some other constable would be nominated for the special duty course and the earlier orders of his selection would be cancelled. As the appellant had absented himself wilfully he was suspended and served with a show-cause notice. The appellant, however, did not agree with the charge mentioned in the show--cause notice and he took the plea of his illness and also produced a medical certificate from a private doctor. The defence put forth by the appellant was found unsatisfactory. He was dismissed from service w.e.f. 9-2-1980 vide Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad order dated 14-2-1980. The appellant made an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha which was rejected vide his order dated 23-6-1981. The appellant made a mercy petition to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab Lahore, which was rejected vide order dated 3-8-1982. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant fell ill in the afternoon of 6-1-1980 and reported in time for duty on the morning of 7-1-1980. Thus, the appellant remained out of duty due to his illness for a few hours and in support of which he had produced a medical certificate of Dr. Noor Muhammad Chaudhry, Alnoor Hospital, Faisalabad, certifying his illness. It was wrong on the part of the respondents to say that the appellant had absented wilfully to evade his selection for special duty course to com--mence at P. T. C., Sihala with effect from 11-1-1980. The appellant was present on duty in the morning of 7-1-1980, he could have been deputed for the said course, as his illness of few hours would have made no material difference for his assignment for special course to commence at P. T. C., Sihala at a later date i.e. From 11-1-1980. This course was for the benefit of the appellant for his future promotion and it was unbeliev--able that the appellant would refuse attending such a course which was beneficial to him. Thus, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the contentions of the respondents were not correct. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the sickness of the appellant was a reasonable cause and he could not be treated as absent, as the medical grounds could not be refused as decided by the Hon'ble High Courts and Government. He relied on some of the authorities and orders passed by the Departmental authorities as follows.-
(i) AIR 1927 Lah. 15.
(ii) 97 IC 423-1921-250-W. No. 408 & 661-C-67.
(i.e) Inspector-General of Police Order No. 3104-6/D-II, dated 29 April, 1970.
(iv) Comptroller and Auditor-General of Pakistan Circular letter No. 1752/NCE-II/44-61, dated 23-10- 1962.
5. Concluding his arguments it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the punishment so awarded to the appellant was uncalled for, unjustified and unlawful.
6. Controverting these arguments the learned District Attorney sub--mitted that this is a case of wilful absence, as according to the arguments .5 of the learned counsel for the appellant if the appellant was really sick, according to the written instructions, he should have gone to the Traffic Office or the Police Office and after obtaining proper docket, should have visited Civil Hospital or at least the Line Hospital which he failed to do. . ,. The appellant even failed to inform the Moharir Traffic on telephone about his illness. Thus, his stay out of police line without permission was not at all justified. He absented wilfully, deliberately, from his place of duty to avoid to go on the special duty course at P. T. C., Sihala. As the misconduct was proved against the appellant, thus, the penalty imposed upon the appellant was correct and lawful.
7. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of the appellant. If it is accepted that the appellant fell sick and remained away from afternoon of 6-1-1980 till morning of 7-1-1980 due to his illness, even then he should have informed his superiors about his illness. Ills stay out of Police line with--out intimation/permission was not justified. On the other hand we feel that absence of few hours from afternoon of 6-1-1980 to the morning of 7-1-1980 by the appellant due to his illness was not such a serious charge/ irregularity against which the appellant should have been treated so harshly, which warranted dismissal from service, specially when he had produced a certificate of his illness from a private doctor for the absent period. The appellant joined the Police Department in 1976, thus, he had sufficiently long service and the punishment awarded to him was not in consonance to the guilt of the appellant.th
8. Keeping the above analysis and observations in view, we set aside the impugned orders. The appellant is directed to be re-instated in service. The punishment of dismissal from service to the appellant is directed to be modified varied as follows :-
(1) Censure.
(2) Stoppage of one year annual increment without future effect.
The period from the date of his dismissal to that of re-instatement will be treated as leave of kind due.
There will be no order as to costs.