The facts of the case are almost admitted to the extent of absence of the appellant on 26.04.2019, which the appellant has also impliedly conceded in his reply to the charge sheet by narrating that on account of participation in some departmental course, the District Officer (CTD), Jhelum was at Islamabad and S.I Muhammad Arshad was performing duty as the District Officer, from whom he sought leave telephonically, which was subsequently refused. However, it was not established even in the denovo inquiry that who was actually responsible for tearing off the aforesaid seven papers from the Roznamcha, whether it was the appellant or the custodian of the said Roznamcha i.e. the concerned Moharrir. In the aforesaid circumstances, the punishment so imposed upon the appellant appears quite harsh qua the gravity of charge established against him.

Moreover, the impugned order dated 11.02.2021 passed by SSP (Admin), CTD, Punjab, Lahore also appears inappropriate in as much as totally depriving the appellant from the salary for the period he remained out of service. In this regard, it is noteworthy that once the competent authority had decided not to keep the appellant out of service, there remained no justification with the authority to deprive the appellant of availing the benefits he had earned during his previous service i.e. the ‘leave due’.