Find a Lawyer

Case No. 440/1245 of 1984.

---Rr. 4 & 6(3)--Enquiry--Show-cause notice--Quantum of punishment- --Absence from duty--Accused persistently absent--Matter not requiring enquiry--No bar for proceeding by show-cause notice--Enquiry, however, held--Accused proved to have absented persistently despite notices by post and also through newspapers--Penalty of removal from service, in circumstances, held, by no means harsh.

Sh. Abdul Qayyum for Appellant.

Malik Muhammad Sadiq, Deputy District Attorney for Respondents.

Khushi Muhammad, ex-Stock Assistant, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Deputy Director, Livestock and Dairy Development Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and the Director of Extension, Production and Artificial Insemination, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. The appellant Khushi Muhammad prayed that the impugned order, dated 1-10-1983, issued by the Deputy Director, Livestock and Dairy Development, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, vide which the appellant was removed from service and the impugned order, dated 25-3-1984 of the Director Extension, Production; Punjab Lahore, vide which the departmental appeal was rejected, may be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in the service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that in the first instance the appellant was granted 10 days, casual leave from 10-10-1973 to 19-10-1973 on private affairs by the Assistant Director, Livestock and Dairy Development, Bahawalnagar. On expiry of leave, he again applied for extension upto 2-11-1973 on medical grounds and resumed duty on 3-11-1973. The Assistant Director being not competent to grant such leave, referred the case to the Director Extension, Punjab (respondent No. 2) vide his No. 12993, dated 31-12-1973. The leave was sanctioned or medical grounds from 10-10-1973 to 2-11-1973 by the said Authority vide Order No. 1758, dated 22-1-1974. After 8 days, two months' more leave from 11-11-1973 to 10-1-1974 was sanctioned at his own request on private affairs by the Deputy Director Livestock (respondent No. 1), vide his Order No.1526, dated 25-10-1973 (Entry exists in the Service Book of the appellant). Further extension was allowed with effect from 11-1-1974 to 10-3-1974, on private affairs by respondent No. 2 vide his Order No.7054-55, dated 21-3-1974. The appellant again requested to extend his leave for two months more with effect from 11-3-1974 to 10-5-1974 on account of illness of his wife and daughter. Since the appellant had already availed lot of leave, the Assistant Director, Livestock and Dairy Development, Bahawalnagar who was the Controlling Authority of the appellant, did not recommend his leave on account of shortage of technical staff in the district and the case was referred to the respondent No. 2 vide No. 1757, dated 26-3-1974 apprising him of the factual position. The respondent No. 2 vide his No.10093, dated 15-4-1974 informed the appellant direct that his leave is refused and also advised the appellant to resume duty at once. He warned the appellant that in case he fails to resume duty, he would be treated as absent from duty with effect from 11-3-1974 and would be dealt with under rules. The appellant took no notice of the directives of the Authority and instead of resuming duty, he applied for further extension of 2 months leave from 11-5-1974 to 10-7-1974. The case was referred to respondent No. 2 by the Assistant Director, Livestock and Dairy Development, Bahawalnagar vide his No.3000, dated 10-6-1974. The respondent No. 2 being an authority in the case charge-sheeted the appellant and delivered the charge-sheet to him. On the receipt of reply from the appellant, the respondent No. 2 appointed Rao Abdul Hameed, the then Veterinary Officer, Moharwali, District Bahawalnagar as an Enquiry Officer vide his Order No. 17548, dated 31-7-1975. On completion of Enquiry, the proceeding was sent to the respondent No. 2 by respondent No. 1 vide his No. 1061, dated 26-9-1975 and No. 1124, dated 14-10-1975. It is not denying the fact that the daughter or wife of the appellant was not sick when he was availing unauthorised leave, but the main aim of his taking frequent leave was to deal in Vety. Medical store, as the Inquiry Officer in his inquiry report proved it. Although the appellant did not admit the fact of running a Store_ before the Enquiry Officer, but this fact was disclosed by himself in the Appeal which he had made to the respondent No. 2 against the orders regarding removal from service passed by respondent No. 1. Aggrieved by the removal order the appellant filed departmental appeal which was rejected vide orders, dated 25-3-1984 of the Director Extension, Punjab. Hence this appeal.

4. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had obtained leave on illness and demise of children. The learned counsel for the appellant added that subsequently the appellant resigned on inducement of Assistant Director/A.O., but the appellant withdrew the application before it was accepted. The appellant then reported for duty but was not accepted and as such the appellant submitted leave application supported with medical ground and was treated absent without leave. The learned counsel for the appellant also stated that the appellant was proceeded ex parte and was condemned unheard. The learned counsel for the appellant closed his arguments while stating that he has applied for the condonation of delay for filing belated anneal.

5. The learned Deputy District Attorney on the basis of written objection of respondents, raised preliminary objection that the appeal was time-barred. For instance the impugned order regarding removal of the appellant from service, was issued by the Deputy Director, Livestock on 1-10-1983, but the departmental appeal was filed on 15-2-1984. Then in spite of rejection of departmental appeal by the Director Extension on 25-3-1984, the appellant did not file an appeal before this Tribunal within prescribed limit and instead filed an appeal on 5-6-1984. The grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay were merely that the appellant went to Fort Abbas to see his ailing uncle and was himself a victim of Diahorrea, which was not plausible. As regards the merits, the learned Deputy District Attorney contended that regular inquiry was conducted against the appellant by the Veterinary Officer after being charge-sheeted by the Assistant Director Livestock as authorized officer. Then after completion of necessary formalities the Deputy Director in capacity of authority, agreeing with the inquiry report and recommendation of the authorized officer, issued the impugned order against the appellant, for removal from the service. The learned Deputy District Attorney stressed that the appellant remained absent for a very long period and notices were also published in daily 'Imroze' as well as 'Nawa-i-Waqt' and 'Wafaq' in addition to notices through posts etc. But the appellant had neither appeared before the Medical Superintendent, Bahawalnagar, nor resumed duty. The learned Deputy District Attorney further stated that on appearance after 71 years, the appellant was personally heard before he was inflicted punishment and meanwhile the Medical Superintendent had returned the medical certificate despatched by the appellant with the remarks that the appellant did not appear before him. As such according to the learned Deputy District Attorney, the appellant remained wilfully absent from duty without leave. The Deputy District Attorney closed his arguments while stating that the appellant is a cronic type of in-disciplined person who continuously remained absent without leave and thus, the impugned order was issued against him on good ground.

6. I have carefully considered the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy District Attorney and have also perused the relevant record including the departmental objection. I am of the considered opinion that to start with, the appeal before the Tribunal is time-barred and the grounds given by the appellant for condonation of the delay, have no force that he went to visit ailing uncle or that he was suffering from Diahorrea. The visit to uncle could not extend the period for filing appeal before the Tribunal and no reliance can be attached on his so-called personal indisposition who also was shy to appear before the Medical Superintendent during the disciplinary proceedings. As regards the merits, there was no bar for the department to proceed against the appellant under rule 6(3) of (E & D) Rules, 1975 because his absence is persistent absence from duty without leave, which did not require a regular inquiry. But the appellant was given a full chance through charge-sheet as well as a regular inquiry and if the appellant has not availed and also meanwhile failed to appear before the Medical Superintendent, the appellant is author of his own wrong. Evidently the absence of the appellant from duty is unprecedented and the department apart from issuing notices by post, resorted to publication of the notices in daily newspapers. The appellant was heard and the impugned order was passed. I see no ground to interfere with the impugned order including the infliction of the penalty which is by no means harsh, considering the established misconduct of the appellant. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

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.