1. ORDER Saad Saood Jan (Chairman).--This is an appeal from the order of compulsory retirement made against the appellant, a foot constable, by the Superintendent of Police, Multan which was maintained by the Deputy Inspector General of Police as well as by the Inspector General of Poliee.
2. It may be stated that one of the members of the Tribunal had dealt with the case of the appellant in the complaint cell of the Provincial Government and for this reason be has not participated in the hearing of this appeal. It appears that a case under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code was registered against the appellant and for the purpose of prosecuting his case he had to remain absent from his police station. For this reason, on 11-12-1970, he made an application to the Superintendent of Police at Multan for a general permission to be away from his Police Station in connection with his case. On 14-12-1970, the Superintendent of Police made the following order on this application. "Allowed to leave the police station to appear before the Court whenever ordered by the Court. He should, however, produce his attendance certificate each time as a proof of the date of his case .in the Court.** It was alleged against the appellant that under the pretext of the above- mentioned general permission he started remaining absent from the police station without any acceptable grounds. Thus, during the period from 5- 2-1971 to 20-7-1971, he remained absent on 13 diverse occasions without good cause for a total number of 64 days. For this he was charge- sheeted and a regular enquiry was held. Before the Enquiry Officer, he was unable to satisfactorily account for his absence on most occasions and as such he was found guilty of misconduct. After a show-cause notice the competent authority directed his compulsory retirement from service. We have heard the appellant in person and also examined the Enquiry Officer's report. The appellant has not been able to give any satisfactory explanation before us why he would nor return to his police station immediately after his business in the Courts was over. Instead, he has cast aspersioos on the Deputy Superintendent of Police who does not at all figure in the proceedings against him. We are satisfied that he was rightly found guilty of misconduct. % The appellant joined service in 1954. Although the punishment of compulsory retirement may appear somewhat harsh we consider that in view of the irresponsible attitude exhibited by the appellant by abusing thel general permission granted to him by the Superintendent of Police we will notp be justified in interfering with the penalty imposed upon him by the depart-! mental authorities. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.