Find a Lawyer

Case No. 868 of 1984, decided on 28th May, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Departmental remedy by way of appeal etc., not availed of in‑time‑‑Plea of absence of notice not reliable‑‑Appeal, in circumstances, dismissed.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.

Ghulam Mustafa has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Government of the Punjab through I.‑G.P. as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that dismissal order be set aside and he be re‑instated in service.

3. Before the case was admitted to regular hearing a report was called for from the I.‑G.P./respondent which has been received today. The case has been called for a number of times but nobody is present. As the report of the respondent is before me I would not dispose of this appeal for want of prosecution but will dispose of the same on merits.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:

Appellant proceeded on 5 days C.L. vide daily diary, dated 8‑4‑1980 and was due back on 14‑4‑1980. He did not report for duty and absented himself without any intimation. A show‑cause notice was served upon on him on 25‑9‑1980. In reply to the same he submitted that during leave he fell ill and never submitted any leave application,' medical certificate. On 8‑1‑1981 he was again issued a show‑cause notice which was served upon him in person on 20‑1‑1981. In reply he took the same plea of illness but neither submitted any medical certificate nor reported back for duty till 7‑2‑1981. He also did not avail a chance of personal hearing and thus ex parte proceedings were taken against him and was dismissed from service on 7‑2‑1981. The period of his absence from 14‑4‑1980 to 7‑2‑1981 was treated as leave without pay. No appeal or revision was filed by the appellant against the order of the S.P., dated 7‑2‑1981 and this fact has been indicated in writing by S.P., Head Quarters, Lahore. He has not exhausted the departmental remedies so available to him and filed this appeal before this Tribunal in 1985.

5. I have examined the Memorandum of Appeal so filed by the appellant in which a plea has been taken that the appellant met an accident and was hospitalised and remained in the hospital for about six months. Later on after discharge he was advised for further rest for a period of more than six months. I have examined the record and find that on 20‑9‑1981, he submitted an application that he fell ill due to typhoid and remained in the Central Hospital Rawalpindi and, therefore, asked for 3 months medical leave. In this application, he had claimed that he sent a number of certificates through Dak. He also applied for further extension.

6. I have given my anxious thought and find a contradictory statement against the one which he gave long long ago before the S.P. I further find that there is nothing on record to show that he never filed any appeal after 7‑2‑1981, although he was personally served with a show‑cause notice and was directed to appear in person for personal hearing before the competent authority, All these things lead to an irresistible conclusion that the appellant had neither exhausted the remedy available to him in time nor his plea that he was lying in hospital either with typhoid or due to accident without any notice to a Senior Officer, is absolutely untenable as well as illogical.

7. In view of the above, I do not find any force in this appeal which is dismissed 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.