ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER),- Muhammad Sadiq son of Roshan Din; ex-Constable (Barbar) has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, the Deputy Inspector---General of Police, Head Quarters, Punjab, Lahore and the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Welfare and P.
Q. Rs. Organization, Punjab, Lahore as respondents. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed to set aside the orders dated 26th July, 1979 passed by the Respondent No. 3 and the order dated 5th March, 1980 passed by the Respondent No. 2. The appellant has further prayed that he be declared to be continuing in service with all the back benefits of service.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Muhammad Sadiq, ex-Constable (Barbar), No. 94 of P.Q.R. Organization was dealt with departmentally for misconduct in that he was referred to the Services Hospital for medical treatment and was admitted in General Hospital, Lahore under the advice of the Service Hospital, Lahore on 13th September, 1978. H.C. Muhammad Zaman, No. 89 was deputed on 25th September, 1978 to contact the appellant in the hospital, but he was found absent from the hospital without any permission. On further enquiry he was not found at his home too. He attended Police Lines, P.Q.R. Kotwali, Lahore on 26th September. 1978 and again absented himself without leave or permission continuously from 14th October, 1978. A show-cause notice was served upon the appellant by the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Welfare on 23rd November, 1978 under the provision of Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975 to justify his absence from duty and misconduct. The enquiry against the appellant was conducted and he was found guilty beyond doubts. He was given an opportunity of personal hearing by Respondent No. 3 on 7th May, 1979 when he levelled some charges against S.I. Muhammad Ashraf, the Lines Officer. In order to ensure justice, another enquiry was ordered which was conducted by Mirza Muhammad Yasin, A.S. P. The enquiry officer held him guilty again. He also came to the conclusion that the allegations against the S.I. Were false and mala fide. The appellant was given another opportunity of personal hearing by the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Welfare and P.Q.R. Organization, Punjab, Lahore on 26th July, 1979. As the appellant was found guilty of misconduct he was removed from service w.e.f.
26th July, 1979. The appellant made an appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police Headqurters, Punjab, Lahore which was also rejected vide his order dated 5th March, 1980. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel of the appellant and the learned District Attorney. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken the plea that the appellant was not afforded an opportunity to defend himself by holding a regular enquiry and also the medical certi--ficate submitted by the appellant of Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Narowal dated 14th October, 1978 should have been accepted for granting the leave to the appellant as per leave rules. Thus removal from service of the appellant is unlawful and not in order. Controverting these arguments, the learned District Attorney argued that the appellant absented himself from duty and left the Headquarters without any permission. Thus he, absented himself from duty wilfully because no medical certificate was received from him during the course of his absence. In view of these facts the issuance of the show-cause notices was perfectly in order, and according to the provisions as laid down under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. Moreover the impugned order of Respondent No. 3 makes it clear that the matter was enquired twice to satisfy the ends of justice and on both the occasions the allegations were proved against him and he was found guilty of misconduct beyond doubts: This is the case of wilful absence on the part of the appellant and the misconduct has been proved. The appellant was lawfully and correctly removed from service.
4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the appellant and .The learned District Attorney and consulted the record. We agree with the learned District Attorney that this is a case of wilful absence. The, appellant was found absent from General Hospital, Lahore in the first instance when he was checked on 25th September, 1978. He attended Police Lines on 26th September, 1978 and again absented wilfully from 14th October, 1978 onward.
He was given opportunities to defend himself but could not prove his innocence. Thus he has been removed from service correctly and lawfully as misconduct of wilful absence from duty stood proved against him.
5, Keeping the above facts in view, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.
There will be no orders as to costs.