Find a Lawyer

Case No. 604 of 1984, decided on 6th November, 1984.

‑‑Wilful absence‑Nurse deputed for service in foreign country on specified terms and conditions that after expiry of deputation period she would get herself relieved from foreign Government or to suffer termination of service‑Making no effort or request for being relieved and continuing service in foreign country even after expiry of deputation period‑Held, rightly treated as absent from duty‑After return from abroad deliberately failing to appear before Authorized Officer in response to show‑cause notice to explain her conduct‑Removal from service for misconduct of ab sence, in circumstances, upheld by service Tribunal‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974). S. 4., Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, r. 6 (3).

Tufail Ahmad Qureshi for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑Miss Daisy Allah Rakha, ex‑Nursing Sister has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, against orders dated 1st February, 1984, of respondent No. 1, by which she has been removed from service. She has impleaded the Punjab Government through Secretary Health Depart ment, Lahore, Medical Superintendent Lady Aitchison Hospital, Lahore, Director Health Services, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal she has prayed that the impugned order dated 1st February, 1984, issued by Respondent No. 1 be set aside and she be reinstated in service. In the alternative it has been prayed that if the appeal was not accepted, the respondents be directed to refund the entire amount in foreign currency paid by her as contributions towards pension for the period 15th June, 1972 to 8th August, 1980.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service as Staff Nurse in Mayo Hospital, Lahore in April, 1949 and worked under different capacities in various Government Hospitals upto June, 1972. It is also on record that the appellant had resigned from service in 1953 and got afresh appointment at Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar. The appellant was sent on deputation to Libya and later on two years further extension was granted to her uptil the year 1975, at her own request. On expiry of the extended period of deputation (15th June 1975), the appellant did not return and report to her Department and remained abroad for another five years unauthorizedly. She returned to Pakistan in August, 1980 and reported to Government on 26th November, 1980 at Lady Aitchison Hospital, Lahore and simultaneously applied for retirement. On receiving her arrival report the Department directed her to report to the Government but she did not do so.. She similarly failed to attend the Lady Aitchison Hospital, therefore, the Medical Superintendent, Lady Aitchison Hospital, was declared as Authorized Officer, for proceeding against the appellant under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, on the charge of miscon duct for not returning to Pakistan after the expiry of her deputation term. After completing necessary formalities under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, the Authorized Officer reported that the appellant intentionally avoided to take part in the proceedings and re commended that she might be removed from service on account of mis conduct for remaining wilfully absent from 'duty unauthorizedly since 15th June, 1975. She did not deposit in foreign exchange, any pension contribution, leave salary, G. P. Fund, B. Fund etc. right from the date of her deputation as was required under the terms and conditions of deputation. A show‑cause notice was issued to the appellant but she never cared to give reply to the said notice. Thereafter a show‑cause notice was got published in the newspaper but with no better result. The appellant was directed by the Authorized Officer on 15th February, 1982, to appear before the Nursing Superintendent, Lady Aitchison Hospital, but she did not turn up. Thus she was removed from service vide im pugned order. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length, who submitted that the absence of the appellant was beyond her control as she was an employee of the Foreign Government and could not return to her country at her own. He has also argued that the appellant had been depositing her foreign exchange commitment towards pension, etc. to the Department, therefore, it could not be considered that she was in any way avoiding to discharge her liability.

5. We have perused the record of the case so produced before us in the form of various annexures attached with the appeal and have given our consideration to the plea raised by the appellant in the appeal as well as through her counsel before us.

6. The fact of the matter is that the appellant was under obligation, according to the terms and conditions of her service/deputation either to get herself relieved from Libyan Government or to suffer the termina tion of service. The plea of the appellant that she could not be relieves from Government of Libya does not impress us on the ground that there is nothing on the record on her behalf to show that after the expiry or her deputation period, she either moved the Libyan Government for being relieved from duties or requested her own Embassy to assist her in achieving the said object. When called upon to prove her bona fide in this respect, the learned counsel for the appellant frankly conceded that she did not do any of the two things. This being so, the charge stands proved against her that she, at her own, continued to serve the Libyan Government for another 5 years and thus remained absent from duty for this long period without any justification.

7. The conduct of the appellant after her arrival in Pakistan, is also not satisfactory as she failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer, Authorized Officer and the competent authority, despite several notices issued by the said authorities in her name at the given address. The Authority exhausted this remedy through media of Press but the same had no effect upon the appellant. In these circumstances, the competent authority had no alternative but to remove her from service as she remained absent without any justification.

8. With regard to her claim for refund of foreign exchange, if any with the Department, she can settle the matter herself by producing rele vant documents before the competent authority.

9. In the light of the above, we do not find any justification to admit the case to regular hearing and dismiss the same in limine.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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