MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).-Nazeer Ahmad; ex-Foot Constable No. 1970, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Inspector---General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police Sargodha Range, Sargodha and the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 11-1-1981, 13-10-1981 and 20-5-1982 passed by the respondents Nos. 3, 2 and I respectively be set aside and he be re-instated into service with all back benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a notice under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 calling upon to show cause as to why major penalty for his absence for a period from 25-11-1979 to 23-12-1979 be not imposed upon him. The appellant submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and was also heard in person. The explanation of the appellant was found to be unsatisfactory and resultantly he was dismissed from service vide order dated 11-1-1981. The appellant filed an appeal to the Deputy Inspector---General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha which was dismissed vide order dated 13-10-1981. The appellant thereafter filed a revision petition before the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore which was also rejected vide his order 20-5-1982. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the parties through their learned counsel. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was despatched from District Police Lines Faisalabad on 25-11-1979 and was directed to report for duty at the Range Reserve Headquarters, Sargodha to which he was posted. It has been submitted that at the time of his departure from Faisalabad, he was sick and was under the treatment of Dr. Akhtar Ali, Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Thikriwala. Since he had suffered `Renal Colic' so he was advised rest upto 25-12-1979 and was issued a medical certificate which was sent by him to the competent authority. It has also been submitted that the competent authority did not apply his mind to this medical certificate and summarily rejected the same and treated him absent from duty. It has further been submitted that this act of Superintendent of Police is ultra vires the leave rules and the-appellant has been illegally dismissed from service. On the other hand it has been argued by the learned District Attorney that the version of the appellant regarding his sickness is a cooked up story in order to defend the charge of absence otherwise he had intentionally remained absent for a period from 25-11-1979 to 23-12-1979 without any information. It has further been argued that the record of the appellant is checkered and he had 27 punishments to his credit, since his recruitment as a Constable on 28-5-1969.
4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case including the parawise comments submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad. The charge against the appellant is that he reported his departure at District Poll a Line Faisalabad vide daily Diary report No. 12 on 25-11-1979 was directed to join Range Reserve but he reported there on 24-12-1979. After an absence of about one month. The plea of the appellant is that he was suffering from Renal Colic and had submitted a medical certificate from an Authorized Medical Officer, who recommended him rest from 23-11-1979 to 25-12-1979. The Superintendent of Police has taken the plea that this is a cooked up story and in fact the appellant was not sick. This has been mentioned in his parawise comments against para. 5 (c). We are afraid that he cannot accept this decision of the Superinten--dent of Police. According to rule 3 (iv) of the revised Leave Rules issued by the Government of the Punjab, Finance Department vide its letter No. S. R. (3)-1/85/78, dated 5-8-1978, the authority competent to sanction leave could only secure second medical opinion and it was not open to him to refuse the leave. The relevant para. 3 (iv) of the said letter is reproduced hereunder :- "3 (iv) It shall not be necessary to specify the reasons for which leave has been applied so long as the leave is due and admissible to a civil servant. Leave applied for on medical certificate shall not be refused. The authority competent to sanction leave may, however, at its discretion, secure a second medical opinion by requesting the Civil Surgeon/Medical Board to have the applicant medically examined."
A similar provision has- been made in rule 20 of the revised leave Rules of 1981 which is reproduced hereunder :---- "20. Reasons need not be specified, etc.-(1) It shall not be necessary to specify the reasons for which leave has been applied so long as that leave is due and admissible to a civil servant.
(2) Leave applied for on medical certificate shall not be refused Provided that the authority competent to sanction leave may, at its discretion secure a second medical opinion by requesting the Civil Surgeon or Medical Board, as the case may be, to have the applicant medically examined."
5. In view of these rules, if the Superintendent of Police had any doubt in his mind regarding genuiness of the medical certificate, he could only refer the applicant to the Medical Superintendent for medical examina--tion for securing a second medical opinion regarding his sickness. Since the Superintendent of Police has failed to adopt such a procedure, we hold that the Superintendent of Police was not justified to presume that the version of the appellant regarding illness seems to have been cooked up in order to support his absence from duty. Thus, we hold that the appellant was not deliberately absent from duty and had to remain so far reasons beyond his control.
6. In view of the detailed analysis, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned orders. The appellant shall be re-instated into service and the period from the date of his departure from Faisalabad on 25-11-1976 to date of his re-instatement shall be treated as leave of the kind due-.
There will no order as to costs.