1

1. That briefly stated the facts of the case leading to filing of the instant
service appeal are that the appellant was proceeded against departmentally by
way of order of inquiry dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure-A) alongwith statement
of allegations (Annexure-B) by the respondent No. 3 under the provisions of
Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975, on the allegation of willful absence from duty,
as mentioned in detain in statement of allegations.
2. That a probe/fact findings inquiry was conducted in slipshod and
perfunctory manner without associating the appellant and without confronting
the appellant with the record alleged to be taken against him. Copy of inquiry
report is attached as (Annexure-C ).
3. That the appellant was issued show cause notice dated 7.12.2022
(Annexure-D ) which was not served upon the appellant.
4. That without holding any regular inquiry and affording a reasonable
opportunity of hearing, the appellant was awarded major penalty of dismissal
from service vide impugned order dated 24.01.2023 (Annexure-E) passed
by the respondent No. 3, without applying independent and judicious mind in a
mechanical and brusque manner.
5. That feeling aggrieved, he filed departmental appeal (Annexure-F)
well within time which was rejected vide order dated 26.7.2023 (Annexure-
G) by the respondent No. 2 in perfunctory manner. The appellant filed revision
(Annexure-H) petition before the respondent No.1 which was also rejected
vide order dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure-J) in unceremonious manner, and
copy of the order was communicated/delivered to the appellant on 04.03.2024,
hence the present appeal, is within time, inter alia on the following amongst
other
GROUNDS;

a. That the impugned orders have been passed illegally, unlawfully and
arbitrarily against the facts, rules and instructions on the subject, hence
the same are not sustainable in the eyes of law being without any
justification and unwarranted.
b. That factual position is that the appellant was coming on a bike for
performing his duty but on the way a truck hitted the appellant’s bike, n
a result of accident the appellant fell down. People gathered there
and take to the appellant to the hospital for emergency treatment. In the
case of accident the appellant’s bone was fractured. After takng
emergency treatment the appellant informed the Moharrari about the
accident. But the appellant remained admitted in the hospital. When the
 2

appellant was discharged from hospital, doctor advised the appellant to

Home bed rest, because the appellant could not walk.
c. That period of absence of the appellant is less than three months.
According to Standing Order No. 12 of 2018 issued by IGP, Punjab
Lahore, the case of the appellant falls in level-2,3, (category-B, C),
hence, any minor penalty other than major penalty can be imposed
upon him.
d. That the appellant was proceeded against departmentally under Punjab
Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 and his departmental appeal was rejected
being barred by time. It has been held by the honourable Supreme Court
of Pakistan that the Rule 14 of Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 does not
prescribe any time period for filing of the departmental appeal against
the penalty order. Reliance is placed on CP 2477-L of 2019 dated
26.3.2021 Tahira Paras Vs. CTO Lahore etc.
e. That on the point of departmental appeal under rule 14 of Punjab Police
(E&D) Rules, 1975, the honourable Chairman, PST, and learned
Members, PST have delivered many judgments whereby the service
appeals of the aggrieved civil servants were disposed of.
f. That the impugned order is exparte and without giving any
opportunity of hearing to the appellant. He has been condemned
unheard. That no show cause notice/charge sheet was ever served to
the appellant which is sheer and clear violation of principle of natural
justice as guaranteed by the Article 10 of the Constitution 1973 of the
country. It is also violation of principle of Audi alterem Partem,
therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law.
g. That factual controversy was involved in the matter which cannot be
resolved without holding a regular and full-fledged inquiry but the
authority did not conduct any regular inquiry without assigning any
reasons. It has been held in law down in 2007 SCMR 192, similarly in
2006 SCMR 846 where it was specifically held that before imposing
major penalty regular inquiry must be conducted but in the instant case
no such kind of regular inquiry was conducted and thus the appellant
was deprived of reasonable opportunity of hearing. Reliance is placed on
PLD 1989 (SC) 335.
h. That the penalty awarded to the appellant is too harsh and does not
commensurate with the quantum of guilt of the appellant. It is settled
principle of law that quantum of punishment should commensurate with
the guilt of the accused. Reliance is placed on PLC 1995 CS 134
 3

Qurban Ali Vs. DIG, KLR 2006, L&SC (FST) 205(b), 2006 SCMR
104, 2008 SCMR 1362 and 2007 PLC (CS) 247 (SC).
i. That his past service record is quite unblemished and he never
derelicted an always showed enthusiasm in the performance of his duty
assigned to him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in number of
cases held that “ a single slip or lapse if any on the part of a Government
servant with consistently good record would not invariably justify such
an inference of major punishment. Reliance is placed on 1999 PLC (CS)
1332, PLD (CS) 1332, PLD 1977 SC 24 and 1988 SCMR 691.
j. That all in all the appellant has been made scapegoat by the
departmental hierarchy for none of his fault.