Find a Lawyer

Case No. 166 of 1985, decided on 8th April, 1985.

‑‑‑ Absence without leave‑‑Misconduct‑‑Police official proceeding on two days sanctioned casual leave but not turning up after expiry and sending application for leave supported by medical certificate for 8 weeks‑‑Notice sent on home address delivered to his wife with direction for its delivery to him‑‑No response received for about 1 months‑‑Competent authority passing dismissal order‑‑Departmental appeal filed after lapse of one year and eight months after return from abroad‑‑Appeal before Tribunal, in circumstances, held, liable to dismissal on score of departmental appeal being time‑barred‑‑Impugned order of dismissal from service otherwise also upheld by Tribunal because of misconduct of absence from duty and leaving country without prior sanction of leave‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals, Act (IX of 1974), S.4.

Masud Ahmed Riaz for Appellant.

‑Muhammad Afzal, ex‑Constable has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad and the D.I.‑G., Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 30‑4‑1983 and final order, dated 18‑2‑1985, be set aside and he be re‑instated in service with full back benefits of pay and allowances.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was issued a show‑cause notice for major penalty for misconduct in that on 13‑3‑1983, he proceeded on two days casual leave. He was required to resume duty on 15‑3‑1983 after the expiry of his leave but he did not turn up and absented himself. A show‑cause notice was sent at his home address but the appellant was not available at his home. It was reported that the appellant had since gone abroad and was not likely to come back in the near future. The notice was, therefore, delivered to his wife with the direction that the memo may be handed over to the appellant if he returns home after a couple of days. As he failed to make any response to the said notice, the impugned order was passed on 30‑4‑1983, by which he was dismissed from service, w.e.f. the said date. He filed appeal before the D.I.G. Police on 20‑12‑1984, which was dismissed as being without any force on the ground that the same was barred by limitation as well as had no merits. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at this stage of preliminary hearing at length.

5. It has been argued that the appellant had rendered more than 10 years service and was an educated person having passed F.A. examination. A reference was made to his previous record which according to the learned counsel was satisfactory. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid stress on the point that the appellant has been condemned without being heard whereas in support of his illness, Medical certificate was submitted, issued by the Medical Officer, Faisalabad.

6. We have given due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and find that the appellant did absent himself from duty and his leave application from 14‑3‑1983 to 15‑5‑1983, was on the strength of certificate issued to him by Medical Officer, D.H.Q. Hospital, Faisalabad, which only recommended complete bed rest for period of eight weeks as he was suffering from Lambego. It is an un-controverted fact that the appellant was never admitted in the hospital for treatment and was not incapacitated due to which he could not reach to his superior with the said Medical certificate /advice and to get his leave sanctioned on the strength of the same. It is apparent from record that the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice at his home through his wife but was not available as it was reported that he had gone abroad.

7. In view of the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal as the appellant approached the D.I.G. Police on 20‑12‑1984, i.e. after a lapse of 1 year and 8 months of his dismissal order, therefore, his appeal would be liable for dismissal on this score. However, we have also taken into consideration his attitude of absenting himself from duty without previous sanction of leave, which would be an act of misconduct as he belonged to a Disciplined Force and should not have left the country without prior sanction of leave 'by the authority. The appeal is dismissed accordingly in limine.

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.