Find a Lawyer

Case No. 531/437 of 1983, decided on 5th April, 1984.

(a) Civil service‑-

‑‑ Disciplinary action ‑ Condemned unheard‑Plea of‑Accused remaining absent on pretext of illness‑Directed through registered letter to appear before Medical Board but such letter coming back with remarks that addressee not available‑Notice thereafter published through press but accused not appearing‑Competent authority terminating service‑Plea of being condemned unheard, in circumstances, repelled by Service Tribunal.

(b) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975--‑

‑‑ R. 4 (1) (a) (ii)‑Withholding of promotion for indefinitely‑rill Illegal‑Accused absenting without leave‑Impugned penalty of withholding promotion indefinitely, in circumstances, altered by ' Service Tribunal to that of withholding promotion for 2 years-- Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

(c) Civil service‑

‑‑ Leave‑Remaining on un-granted leave‑Such attitude, held, worth condemnation.

Ahmad Nadeem Malik for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).

‑Ikram‑ul‑Haq has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Director of Agriculture (Extension) Cotton Zone, Multan, as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal be has prayed that the order of the Director, dated 23rd December, 1982, be set aside to the extent wherein his promotion has been stopped indefinitely, warning has been ad ministered and the period of absence from duty has been treated as period without pay.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Deputy Director Agriculture, Sahiwal reported that on transfer from Sabiwal to Muzaffargarh, the appellant had not banded over the charge as the appellant on 4th April, 1981, fell ill and asked for one day leave which was sanctioned and without getting any permission to leave station, he proceeded to his home town Okara and there from he sent leave applications supported by medical certificate of the Private Medical Practitioner, to the Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sahiwal/Director Agriculture (Exten sion) Cotton Zon, Multan, when the same was returned to his address, asking him to send the certificates to the proper quarter. The appellant did not join duty and kept on sending medical certificates and thus treated himself on leave. The appellant was direct to appear before the Medical Board vide letter, dated 19th January, 1982 sent by a registered letter to his home address but the same came back un-served with the observation that. Then the letter was published in Nawa‑i‑Waqt on 15th February, 1982, but it had no effect. In these circumstances, the Deputy Director Agriculture, Muzaffar garh, terminated his services w. e. f. 5th April, 1981, when he found that the appellant was neither available nor has made any contact with his parent office. Aggrieved against this order, he filed appeal before the next higher authority, before whom he appeared in person, who keeping a lenient view on the ground that the appellant had 20 years long service at his credit, reinstated him in service and placed his services at the disposal of the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Muzaffargarh. However, the period of his absence from duty on the strength of his private medical certificate from 5th April, 1981 to the date of his joining duty, was treated as without pay. He was debarred from further pro motion and severally warned to be careful in future.

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

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been condemned unheard as he was neither issued a show cause notice nor any charge‑sheet was served upon him and has bee removed from service in utter disregard of the Punjab Civil Servant (E & D) Rules, 1975, as laid down in this behalf. He has also further argued that the penalty of debarring him from promotion indefinitely was nowhere provided under the Rules, therefore, the same was illegal. He has further urged that the period for which he has remained on leave 013 the strength of medical certificate, may also be considered as period spent on duty. He has taken exception to the warning on the ground that he was genuinely ill person, who was entitled to avail medical leave and thus no exception could have been taken to his said act.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and find that the grievance of the appellant for denial) of opportunity of being heard was baseless because all efforts were made by the Department to contact him through a registered letter as well as through media of press, but it was he who created such condition and forced the authority to proceed against him ex parte. We also further find that the appellant did leave on the 4th without obtaining the permis sion of his superior and thus bypassed a prerequisite in this behalf. We are also not satisfied with the stand of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was so ill that he could not move from his house and therefore, was unable during this period to show his face, to his superiors. Even for the sake of argument, if we accept that the appellant was genuinely ill, even then he has failed to satisfy us that be was all alone by himself, without any friend or relative and thus could not communicate to the outside world. In this manner, we repel the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was condemned unheard.

7. However, with regard to the penalties imposed in the concluding paragraphs of the appellate order, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty of withholding promotion indefinitely is illegal as the same does not find mention among the list of penalties as laid down in the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. We therefore, vary this penalty only to the extent that he will not be eligible for promotion for at least 2 years.

8. With regard to the argument of the learned counsel ‑for the appellant that the period of absence be treated without pay, we hardly feel any substance in the same as. the appellant remained on un-granted leave without prior approval and such like attitude in service is worth condemnation. If we permit such like latitude, we will be allowing civil servants to throw rules and regulations to the winds and come and go to their leisure and pleasure.

9. The result is we dismiss the appeal as being without any merits subject to the modification so made in one of the penalties as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be released to the parties.

A. E. Appeal partly accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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