Find a Lawyer

Case No. 482/1406 of 1981, decided on 15th December, 1982.

----Dismissal from service for wilful absence‑Person proceeded on leave but did not return ‑ Failed to reply nor appeared before Medical Board and competent authority despite personal service of notice‑Habitual wilful absentee--Medical certificates produced after eight months not proving serious illness‑Tribunal refused to interfere in circumstances.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑‑‑Maqsood Ahmad son of Barkat, ex‑Head Constable Police, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order dated 27th July, 1980 passed by respondent No. 1 and order, dated 1st September, 1981 passed by respondent No. 2 by which he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 20th July, 1980.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that he be reinstated in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1, Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, issued a show‑cause notice to the appellant when he was working as Head Constable in the said District. The show‑cause notice related to the wilful absence of the appellant when he proceeded on 10 days' casual leave on 12th August, 1979 but failed to report back on duty. The appellant neither submitted any reply nor he appeared before the Medical Board as required on 18th May, 19bO and also failed to make his appearance before the competent authority. The Superintendent of Police in view of the above circumstances passed the impugned order dismissing him from service. It may be pointed out at this place that the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice but did not care to appear despite his personal service. He filed an appeal before the next higher authority i.e. Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range, who found him a malingerer and habitual absentee and upheld the order of the S. P. so find against him. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record in this case carefully with their assistance.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has made a grievance that although the appellant bad been submitting the medical certificates regularly to the competent authority but the same took no action on said medical certificates and illegally held that the appellant was guilty of wilful absence.

6. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has submitted that nobody can be allowed to remain on leave on the strength of medical certificates unless the same are submitted to the authority concerned and approved by it. The learned District Attorney has pointed out that 5 medical certificates in this case were produced by the appellant after about 8 months when he reported for duty and made an application on 3rd May, 1980. According to the learned District Attorney, the appellant is recipient of six punishments during his service out of which five were on account of his absence.

7. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments so advanced before us and have examined the 5 medical certificates issued in favour of the appellant from time to time, produced by him before the S. P. The record to this case shows that none of these certificates were received by the competent authority and it was only when the appellant chose to appear after about 8 months of absence then he produced the same before the said authority. The claim of the appellant that his failure to appear before the Medical Superintendent or before the competent authority was due to his illness is hardly sustainable in view of the nature of disease so recorded in the medical certificates on which he has placed his reliance. The disease so mentioned in the certificate is P. U. O. and Renal Colic, a disease which cannot prolong for 8 months in continuity. It was the duty of the appellant to contact the appellate authority as soon as he was relieved of the pain which could not prolong or continue for indefinite period and to appear before the Medical Superintendent as directed. The fact of the matter is that the appellant was sent to Police Training School Hangu. The appellant after joining the said place realised that it was not a comfortable station to serve, as being far away from his home district and thus took shelter behind the medical certificates and absented himself as long as he chose to do so. This trial of his character is full) exhibited in his earlier career of his service so mentioned by the D. I.‑G in his order while rejecting his appeal. It is especially on his service record that he received punishment five times during the course of his service for wilful absence.

8. We are of the considered opinion that the certificates so produced on the record by the appellant in no way advance his case of his serious illness which allegedly kept him on the bed for full 8 months.

9. We do not find any reason to interfere with the two well con sidered orders of the S. P. and D. I.‑G. and maintain the same.

10. The result is that we dismiss the appeal as being without any merits.

However, parties will bear their own 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.