Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 3533/S of 1979, decided on 20th January, 1985.

‑‑ Art. 199‑Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. 1975‑Absence from duty‑Question whether civil servant's absence abroad could be regularised under Government letter meant to regularise service abroad of such civil servants who had obtained job out of country without prior approval, a question already open for examination by competent authority in proceedings against him under Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 such civil servant at liberty to defend proceedings according to his best advice‑Interference declined by High Court his circumstances.

Ch. Muhammad Saeed for Petitioner.

Rashid Aziz, A.‑G. for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 20th January, 1985.

On 4th October, 1977 the petitioner got a job in Saudi Arabia 83 Administrative Officer, King Abdul Aziz University Jeddah. He did not obtain permission of the Government of Punjab under which he was serving as Assistant Director Technical Education. On 8th August, 1978 the Government of Punjab issued a letter for regularisation o f the service abroad of such civil servants who had obtained these jobs abroad without prior approval of the Government. The petitioner applied to the Government of Punjab for permission under this letter but his request was turned down on 24th March, 1979. The petitioner did not return after that but applied for extension in 1982. This was refused on 22nd May, 1982. The petitioner continued to stay abroad even after that and reported for duty only on 24th September, 1984 but he was not allowed to join as proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules were taken in hand by then. The petitioner brought this writ petition in 1979 challenging the refusal of the Government to grant permission to him under a letter of 1978. It was admitted to consider the question of applicability of the letter of 1978. It is evident, however, that in the meantime a number of other developments have taken place and the petitioner is facing an inquiry under Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The main charge against him is of absence from duty without permission. The case of the petitioner is that his absence abroad could be regularised under the letter of 1978. Since this question is already open for examination before the competent authority in the proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules it will not be proper for this Court to give any judgment at this stage as it is likely to prejudice the case of the parties in the proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to defend the proceedings according to his best advice. The writ petition is disposed of with these observations, with no order as to costs.

M. Y. H.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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