1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN): ‑‑This appeal arose from dismissal of the appellant from service vide the order of District and Sessions Judge, Shikarpur dated 22‑4‑1993. The said order was challenged by the appellant in departmental appeal filed before the Chief Justice, Sindh High Court. It was, however, rejected vide the intimation conveyed to the District and Sessions Judge, Shikarpur by letter of Registrar dated 11‑12‑1993. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present appeal on 9‑1‑1994. The background of the appellant's case is that while he was working as clerk in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Shikarpur, he went to perform Umra after getting four months' leave. Somehow he did not return to resume his duties on expiry of the leave but instead applied for extension in leave. Nothing was heard by him as regards grant or otherwise of the extension applied for by him. He however resumed his duties on 17‑3‑1993. Subsequently he was served with show‑cause notice dated 7‑4‑1993. The allegation contained in the show -cause notice was that after expiry of earned leave granted to the appellant on the ground of illness of his brother he failed to resume his duties and remained absent until 17th March, 1993 unauthorisedly and furthermore he went to Saudi Arabia without obtaining ex‑Pakistan leave. The appellant was given 14 days to submit his reply. Since he was unable to furnish his explanation within the said specified period he applied for extension of time. But in the mean time vide the order of District and Sessions Judge, Shikarpur dated 22‑4‑1993 the appellant had already been dismissed from service. Hence the present appeal. We heard the learned counsel for the parties, Mr. M.L. Shahani for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari on behalf of official respondents. In course of his arguments the appellant's learned counsel did not press the appeal on merits but he prayed for curtailment of the penalty of dismissal awarded to the appellant as in his opinion the said penalty was too harsh in the circumstances of the case. The learned A.A.G. did not seriously contest the prayer. Since the appellant's learned counsel did not press the appeal on merits it was not necessary for us to go into the detailed discussion of the merits of the case. We would therefore confine ourselves to consideration for reduction in the penalty awarded to the appellant. It goes without saying that the dismissal from service would operate as a permanent bar and close the doors for the appellant for future employment. The appellant appeared to us to be a young man of twenties. He is not expected to do any manual labour but would rather search for some other white collar employment which in the face of his dismissal from service he was unlikely to get. Moreover, he had gone for performing religious duties of Umra during the period of leave though it was improper on his part to have obtained leave on the pretext of illness of his brother and without obtaining necessary leave. We are of the view that above reason was not enough to finish the entire career of the appellant by awarding extreme penalty of dismissal from service to him. No doubt be needed to be given adequate rubbing so that he should be careful for the future and should refrain from committing such defaults as mentioned, above. We are supported in our thinking by learned Judge of Sindh High Court, Mr. Justice Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo to whom the departmental appeal filed by the appellant was referred for disposal. He was pleased to make the following observations:‑‑ "However, appellant Habibur Rehman prays for mercy and wishes that he should not be made unemployed. It is for Honourable Chief Justice to give him mercy but in my view for the lapse on the part of the appellant his services could have been terminated but there was no need for taking a harsh action like dismissal from service." We are fully in agreement with the above observations of the learned Judge of Sindh High Court. The learned A.A.G. also shares our views. For the above reasons we direct that the penalty of dismissal of the appellant from service be converted into his removal from service. Subject to the said modification in the penalty awarded to the appellant the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. AA./580/Sr.S Order accordingly.