Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 562 of 1980, decided on 3rd November, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 3‑2‑1980 of the Services Tribunal Punjab, Lahore in Appeal No. 413 of 1979).

‑‑ R. 8.15 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212‑Service appeal‑Petitioner censured for remaining absent without leave and period of absence treated as leave without pay ‑ Petitioner not challenging order of censure but filing appeal against order treating his absence as leave without pay‑Rule 8.15, held, of no avail to petitioner and no substantial question of public importance being raised, case not fit for interference under Art. 212 of Constitution.‑[Civil services].

Sardar A. Khalid, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 3‑2‑1980, whereby the appeal directed against the order of the Superintending Engineer (Head quarters) Irrigation, Central Region, Lahore, whereby the absence from duty of the petitioner, for a period of one year 27 days was reckoned as extra ordinary leave with pay, was rejected.

This petition came up for bearing on 10‑2‑1981 on which date no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the petition was dismissed in default. The petitioner has submitted an application for restoration of the said petition and for the reasons given therein we restore the petition and proceed to hear it on the merits.

The petitioner on 3‑1‑1977, was granted 4 months' ex‑Pakistan leave on "private affairs", namely, to take his daughter to Dubai to settle her there, as her husband was working there. It is his case that he fell ill in Dubai and applied for extension of leave, in the first instance for one month. This application was supported by a medical certificate and although he received no intimation that this application was allowed, he did not return and instead submitted eight further applications, each time duly supported by a medical certificate, for extension of leave. In this way he had applied for leave to cover his stay abroad which lasted for a period of 1 year 27 days. However, none of the applications for leave was ever granted.

On his return to Pakistan, tile petitioner was charge‑sheeted fox remaining absent without leave and on that account was administered a censure anti the period of 1 year 27 days was treated as extraordinary leave without pay. The petitioner did not challenge the order of censure by filing any appeal against it but filed an appeal to question the decision treating his absence as an extraordinary leave without pay and relied upon rule 8.1 of the C. S: R. (Punjab), Volume I, Part I.

The learned Service Tribunal held that the order regarding censure no having been appealed against the same had become final. This censure was obviously based on the assumption that the petitioner was absent without leave. Hence his attempt to challenge the consequential order of treating the period of absence as extraordinary leave without pay, was not open to objection. 1t also held that the rule 8.15 of the C. S. R. (Punjab), Volume 1, Part I, was not applicable.

Mr. Sardar A. Khalid, in support of this petition, has again relied on rule 8.15 of the C. S. R. (Punjab), Volume I, Part I and after going through it we are of the view that it is not of any avail to the petitioner and rather a it goes against him. In any case, no substantial question of public importance is raised in this case and, therefore, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 212 of the Constitution.

This petition fails and is dismissed hereby.

Petition fails.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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