| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 999 2017 SLD 999 2017 PLJ 100 |
Service Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. 1608 of 2015, decided on 6.6.2016. Date of hearing: 6.6.2016.
KHALID MAHMOOD RAMAY, MEMBER-V
Syed Hamid Raza Bokhari, Advocate for Appellant. Sardar Muhammad Ahmed, D.A. and Mr. Muhammad Imtiaz, ASI, D.R. for
Respondents.
Appeal No. 1608 of 2015, decided on 6.6.2016. Date of hearing: 6.6.2016.
KHALID MAHMOOD RAMAY, MEMBER-V
Syed Hamid Raza Bokhari, Advocate for Appellant. Sardar Muhammad Ahmed, D.A. and Mr. Muhammad Imtiaz, ASI, D.R. for
Respondents.
MUHAMMAD ASIF --Appellant
VS
REGIONAL POLICE OFFICER, GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER - --RespondentS
Law:
Section:
Civil Servant-- ---Willful absence from duty--Penalty of dismissal from service--Reinstatement by converting penalty of dismissal from service into suitable lesser penalty--Although charge of willful absence from duty is proved from record as appellant had not applied for leave and remained absent without any prior permission, however, penalty awarded to appellant is too harsh and it does not commensurate with gravity of misconduct committed by him, i.e. he remained absent, due to medical reasons as is evident by record submitted--Philosophy of punishment is based on concept of retribution, which may be either through method of deterrence or through reformation. [Pp. 101 & 102] A PLJ 2011 Tr.C. 82, ref. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: KHALID MAHMOOD RAMAY, MEMBER-V Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was proceeded against departmentally under Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 on the charge of willful absence from duty for a period of 01 month, 15 days & 05 hours. Resultantly, vide order dated 06.08.2014, Respondent No. 2 awarded him major penalty of "Dismissal from Service". Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred departmental appeal before Respondent No. 1, who vide order dated 21.02.2015, rejected the same. Thereafter, the appellant approached this Tribunal by way of filing the instant appeal on 20.03.2015. 2. Arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney have been heard. Contents of memorandum of appeal,parawise comments offered by the respondents and record as produced by the department have also been perused. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was awarded major penalty by the authority without conducting any regular enquiry, which is sheer violation of law laid down by honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgments reported as 1997 SCMR 1543 and 2009 SCMR 412, wherein it has been held that "In case of awarding major penalty, a proper inquiry is to be conducted in accordance with law, where full opportunity of defence is to be provided to delinquent official/officer". He argued that verdict of the Supreme Court is a binding upon allvide Article 189 of Constitution…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492