Find a Lawyer

Case No. 245/4416 of 1981.

‑‑‑R.6 (3)‑‑Misconduct‑‑Wilful absence from duty‑‑Removal from service‑‑Failure of appellant to return despite notice nor appearing for personal hearing‑‑Ex parte order of removal from service challenged‑ Appellant, held, guilty of misconduct, a malingerer and upheld order .

Muhammad Jahangir Arshad for Appellant.

Haroonur Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

Muhammad Fazal, ex‑Police Constable No. 234 of Multan District has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Additional Superintendent of Police, Multan, Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan and the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 5‑8‑1980, 17‑1‑1981 and 23‑4‑1981 of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Fazal, ex Police Constable No. 234 of Multan District absented himself from duty without, leave or permission from the competent authority from 27‑3‑1980 onward while posted at Police Station Cantt. Multan and never reported back for duty despite issue of show‑cause notice. The appellant neither submitted reply to the show‑cause notice nor appeared before the Superintendent of Police, Multan for personal hearing. Finding no alternative, Superintendent of Police, Multan passed the orders of his removal from service, vide his order, dated 5‑8‑1986. The appellant made an appeal to Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan which was rejected vide his order, dated 17‑1‑1981. The appellant preferred a revision petition to the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore which was also rejected, vide Order No. 13208‑10/M‑5, dated 4‑5‑1981 Hence this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been removed from service without being given an opportunity to defend himself and he was condemned unheard. Furthermore, no enquiry was held against him and only a show‑cause notice was served upon

him which was also not received by him. Thus, ex parte action against the appellant was not proper. His previous, service record was also not kept in view when the penalty was imposed on the appellant. The learned District Attorney controverted these arguments by submitting that the appellant himself absented from duty wilfully, did. not care to return to duty and his whereabouts were not known. On these facts of the case and under the circumstances the competent authority was compelled and within its rights to issue the show‑cause notice under General Police Proceedings as laid down in rule 6(3) of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975, which was duly served upon him through his father, as it could not be served to him personally. In his appeal, the appellant has contended that he was away due to sickness of his father and he was required to attend him. Thus, serving of show‑cause notice, through his father was more appropriate and practicable. The learned District Attorney further submitted that the appellant has taken a plea in his appeal, that he presented leave applications to S.S.P., Multan, in spite of his promises to grant him leave, one application was torn by S.S.P. and no action was communicated on the other, is absurd. It is unbelievable that a responsible officer of S.S.P. status would not be careful in dealing with such applications properly if these would have been presented to him. The District Attorney concluded that the appellant has been correctly penalised for misconduct of wilful absent from duty.

5. I have given my anxious thoughts to the arguments put forth by both the learned counsel, have perused the record of the case and also service record of the appellant. It is clear from the arguments put forth by the learned District Attorney and also record shows that the appellant absented himself wilfully and never cared to return to duty. I agree with the learned District Attorney that it is unbelievable that an officer of the rank of S.S.P: could destroy the application presented to him by the appellant or would not deal with the applications properly. While disposing of his appeal, D.I.‑G., Police, Multan Range, Multan has mentioned in his Order No. 1071‑72/BE, dated 17‑1‑1981 as follows:‑‑

"During personal hearing he had agitated the issue that he had submitted no less than three applications to the S.P. for the grant of leave, while one was torn out by him, the orders on the other 2 were not communicated. S.P. Multan was addressed accordingly, vide this Office Memo. No. 30615/BE, dated 30‑12‑1980 that the veracity of his statement should be furnished within 7 days. S.P. Multan vide his Memo. No. 541, dated 5‑1‑1981 has reported that the record of P.S. Cantt. O . A . S . I . Branch and that of the Service Roll Clerk has been checked but no such applications are found to have been sent to him by the appellant."

The above facts, clarify that no leave applications were submitted by the appellant and his later versions were just a concoction to cover up his wilful absence. It is also clear from the record that the appellant was served duly with a show‑cause notice to which the appellant never responded. Thus the misconduct of wilful absence from duty against the appellant stands proved. I have perused his service record which shows that in the year 1979, one year's approved service of the appellant A was forfeited permanently on account of his wilful absence as well. He repeated the same story in the present case, again absented himself during the year 1980. It proves that he does not have satisfactory service record and is a malingerer.

6. Keeping the above analysis in view, I hold that there are no merits in his appeal which is dismissed as such.

There will be no orders as to costs.

M. I. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.