Find a Lawyer

Case No. 17/16 of 1983, decided on 7th January, 1984.

‑‑‑R.6‑‑Removal from service on charge of wilful absence‑‑Punishment reduced by appellate authority to stoppage of three increments with last warning‑‑Order challenged 'before Tribunal‑‑Appellant's service record revealed him disobedient, habitual leave taker and of objectionable behaviour‑‑Held: Appellate authority had already dealt with leniently by re‑instating him in service with only forfeiture of three increments for his misbehaviour‑‑Appeal dismissed in limine.

Ch. Bashir Ahmad for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.

Appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the orders of Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, dated 18‑9‑1982 removal from service and against the order, dated 8‑12‑1982 of Commissioner Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, while partly accepted his appeal, is varied the order of Deputy Commissioner from removal from service to forfeiture of three increments permanently with the direction that in case he repeats the act of disobedience he would be removed from service without giving him any further chance. He has impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar and Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that both the impugned orders be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who was a driver in Deputy Commissioner's Office was removed from service for wilful absence. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Bahawalpur who gone through the entire record and noted that the penalty so imposed upon the appellant is harsh and varied the same to forfeiture of three increments by setting aside the order of his removal from service.

4. I have carefully looked into the comments of the respondents which have been made available at the time of preliminary hearing and have also perused the detailed judgment of the Commissioner as well as that of the Deputy Commissioner. The appellant first of all acquired medical leave for 10 days and again obtained further leave for two days and repeated the said application for leave on 28‑3‑1982 with a request for one month further leave on the strength of medical certificate from a private doctor. The service record of the appellant reveals that he has been in the habit of taking leave off and on and his behaviour is also objectionable. He never exhibited any interest in his work. It is also clear from the record that he did not comply with the orders of his superiors to produce medical certificate for two days leave applied on this account and instead appeared for one day in office and again applied for leave for one month on the strength of a private doctor. It is also established on the record that on 27‑3‑1982 Medical Superin tendent, Bahawalpur declared him fit for service and he pretended illness and in this manner he disobeyed the order of his superior. After going through the detail judgment of the learned Commissioner I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has been dealt with, leniently and the Commissioner gave him considerable concession by re‑instating him in service with only forfeiture of three increments for his misbehaviour. Therefore, I do not find any justification to admit this case for regular hearing. The result is I dismiss the appeal in limine.

However, there will be no order as to 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.