Find a Lawyer

Case No. 404/1413 of 1981, decided on 30th May, 1982.

‑‑ S. 4‑Jurisdiction of Tribunal ‑ Cannot interfere with working of Department and internal administrative matters ‑ Appellant absenting from duty for more than two years and on return competent authority ordering period of absence to be treated as leave without pay and to be considered as new entrant in service on appellant's refusal to accept such order and claiming pay for period of absence also competent authority reinstating him in service and reserving its right to initiate disciplinary proceedings on charge of unauthorised absence Plea before Tribunal that competent authority having once treated period of absence as leave without pay could not review its order hence could not take disciplinary action on that ground ‑ Appellant having himself refused to accept such order plea of appellant, in circumstances, rejected‑Tribunal, held, would not be justified to interfere in internal administrative matters and in an action apparently seemed to have been taken on valid grounds‑Tribunal further, held, could not forbid competent authority from taking disciplinary action against appellant‑Appellant, held, could ventilate his grievance when final order passed against him.

Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad for Appellant.

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

. ‑ Muhammad Hanif has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order, dated 13th April, 1981 and 18th April, 1981 of the District Health Officer, Rahimyar Khan, who has been cited as respondent in this case.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that he may be re‑instated in service and the arrears of the pay together with allowances from 25th September, 1977 upto date be paid to him.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant absented himself from duty w.e.f. 25th September, 1977 to 17th February, 1981. However, on his return he was posted against an existing vacancy of Mobile Dispensary, Rahimyar Khan and his absence of four years was treated as leave without pay. The District Health Officer also observed in his order, dated 18th February, 1981 that he will be considered as new entrant into Government service. This action was only taken as there was shortage of qualified dispensers. The appellant did not accept the said order of the D. H. O. Rahimyar Khan as he was not willing to be treated as new entrant in service and also claimed the pay for the period he remained absent from duty. The D. H. O. vide his order dated 4th July, 1981 reinstated him into service while reserving his right to proceed against him under the E & D Rules, 1975, for his unauthorised absence from duty from 1st July, 1976 to 17th February, 1981. It may be mentioned here that D. H. O. vide his order dated 18th April, 19811had withdrawn his earlier order, dated 18th February, 1981 on the ground that the appellant refused to accept the said order and had protested of his being treated as new entrant and also claimed the pay for the period in which he remained absent.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. The main ground agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant before us is that the first order so passed cannot be reviewed and once the period of absence has been treated as leave without pay, there ford, no proceedings could be taken against him on the same ground. We are afraid that the contention so raised before us is not impressive. The appellant himself refused to accept the first order by which he was re‑employed. Under these circumstances, the D. H. O. had no alternative but to withdraw the same and to proceed against him under the E & D Rules, for his alleged wilful absence. It would be now for the appellant to prove his innocence and to justify his absence. If appellant was successful to face his stand his earlier status would remain undisturbed. This Tribunal would not be justified to interfere in the internal administrative matters which obviously, on the face of it, seems to have been taken against the appellant on valid grounds.

5. In view of, the above, the payer so made before us that we should forbid the competent authority, not to take any disciplinary action against the appllant, is beyond our scope of jurisdiction. This Tribunal carp B set aside, vary, modify the original or final order of the Departmental) Authorities but it cannot interfere with the working of the Department in any manner whatsoever.

6. The result is we do not find any force in this appeal and proceed to dismiss the same as being without any merits. However, the appellant is at liberty to ventilate his grievances, if any when final order is passed against him after the due process of the disciplinary action so initiate against him.

7. However, there will be no order as to costs.

A. E. 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.