1984 PLP 1512 (PLC(CS))

M. A. Hamid Awan for Appellant. Date of hearing: 20th May, 1984. challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.

2. The allegation for which the appellant was dismissed was absence without leave for about five months. He was sent two charge‑sheets, Exhs. R. W. 2/5 and R. W. 2/4. Their postal receipts are Exhs. R. W.‑1/4 and R. W.‑1/2 respectively. He was asked to get fitness certificate and resume duty but he failed. He, after fresh enquiry was permitted, joined the enquiry. He was afforded full opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses as is evident from the enquiry file.

3. So far as merits are concerned it has not been argued that by the evidence absence was not established. Rather the absence is admitted and the plea is that the appellant was ill. The appellant was asked to gets himself medically examined from the Medical Superintendent, Sheikhupura~ but he failed. If the respondent was not satisfied with the medical certificate of private doctor, the appellant should have, if he was actually ill, got himself medically examined from the Medical Superintendent, Sheikhu pura and sent the certificate. Failure on his part to comply with the con dition laid down by the employer shows that in reality he was only pre tending to be ill.

4. It has been argued that the statement of the appellant that he ha closed his defence was not recorded by the Enquiry Officer. If the appellant had not examined any witness in defence, this plea may have been sufficient but he examined three witnesses and this is not his case that any other defence witness was present but his statement was not recorded. This is also not his case that he had sought adjournment to produce more witnesses in defence. So, in these circumstances recording of his statement that he had no more defence witnesses to examine was not fatal to the respondent's case.

5. The other arguments is that absence of seven days for which casual leave was applied was also included in the charge‑sheet. This is so, but total continued absence being for five months, the appellant yet was guilty of misconduct even if seven days are excluded from the charge‑sheet.

6. The last argument is that R. W. 3 said that an employee who is allowed medical allowances cannot get himself treated by a private doctor. No doubt R. W. 3 stated so on account of his ignorance but it had no adverse effect upon the case of the respondent. The employee may get himself treated by any doctor but so far as medical certificate is concerned, the employer can insist that it should be taken from a doctor suggested b g him. Since the appellant did not produce medical certificate, nor got the certificate of the private doctor endorsed by the Medical Superintendent Sheikhupura, the respondent was justified in rejecting the leave. The mis conduct of absence for more than ten days was thus established and the appellant was rightly dismissed and his grievance petition rightly disbelieve by the learned lower Court.

7. As a result, the appeal is without any force and is thus dismissed in limine. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.