1994 PLP 1840 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑ Dismissal from service ‑‑‑WAPDA employee secured employment abroad while availing ex‑Pakistan leave, in clear violation of his commitment to the effect that he would not seek employment any where else during the period he availed leave‑‑‑Employee had not sought permission from WAPDA, before obtaining employment abroad and failed to joint duty on expiry of the ex -Pakistan leave‑‑‑Dismissal from service of such employee was justified in circumstances. A.R. Shaikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th May, 1994. MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J‑‑‑Aman Ullah Khan petitioner herein, through this petition under Article 188 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, seeks review of the judgment dated 4‑4‑1993, of this Court, whereby C.P. 447‑L/1992, fled by him was dismissed.

2. The petitioner joined service as Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. (Electricity Branch) Government of Punjab on 5‑8‑1955. On the establishment of WAPDA in 1958, the petitioner as well as other officers of the P.W.D. were transferred en bloc to WAPDA on the same terms and conditions of service. He was promoted in 1962, as Executive Engineer and 1973‑74, as Superintending Engineer. He was posted as Director of Designs, WAPDA (Power), Lahore.

3. On 9‑5‑1978, the petitioner was granted ex‑Pakistan leave for a period of two months and 14 days for performing Umra and visiting members of his family in England. Leave was granted on the express undertaking that he would not seek employment anywhere else. The petitioner did not abide by his commitment and obtained employment without permission of WAPDA in Saudi Arabia. He was proceeded departmentally for his absence from duty and eventually dismissed from service. His appeal before the departmental authority as well as before the Service Tribunal failed. He filed petition for leave to appeal against the aforesaid orders in this Court, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 8‑4‑1993: Hence this petition.

4. In support of this petition, learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner was a Provincial Government Officer and not on deputation with WAPDA as incorrectly recorded in the impugned judgment, therefore, the question of he being on second deputation did not arise. It has also submitted that the petitioner's case was covered by instructions issued by WAPDA on 19‑8‑1978, for regularising employment accepted abroad by the officers on their own accord.

5. It was argued that the petitioner had applied for extension of ex- Pakistan leave but his case was misconstrued and considered as if he had wilfully absented himself from duty.

6. We have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner but find no merit in them. The petitioner at no stage asserted that on his transfer from the Provincial Government he was not WAPDA employee or that his lien remained intact during his employment with WAPDA. Undoubtedly on his transfer to WAPDA his post in the Provincial Government or his lien on that post, whatever stood abolished at least from the date he was permanently absorbed in WAPDA. The departmental authorities were, therefore competent to take disciplinary action against the petitioner for his misconduct. Undoubtedly the petitioner secured employment in Saudia Arbia while availing ex‑Pakistan leave, in clear violation of his commitment, to the effect that he would not seek employment any where else during the period he availed leave. It is not denied that he did not seek permission from WAPDA, before obtaining employment abroad and failed to join duty on expiry of the ex‑Pakistan leave, therefore, no indulgence was shown and, rightly so in his I favour.

7. In our view, the petition has failed to make out a case justifying review of the impugned judgment of this Court. Resultantly, this petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. M.BA./A‑1190/S Petition dismissed.