1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD MAHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA (CHAIRMAN).‑ Amanullah Khan, ex‑Director of Design, WAPDA (Power), Lahore has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the impugned orders dated 28‑10‑1987 and 13‑3‑1988 passed by respondents. The appellant has impleaded the Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore, Member (Power), WAPDA, Lahore and Secretary, Irrigation and Power, Lahore as respondents. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders passed by respondents be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant was granted three months' leave ex‑Pakistan by respondent No.3 w.e.f. 18‑5‑1978 to visit England and perform Umra. After the expiry of the leave the appellant instead of reporting back for duty joined service as Chief Planning and Design/Project Engineer in Saudi Arabia for which the appellant never sought permission from the WAPDA authorities. He however, sent application for grant of extension of leave for three years. He was charge‑sheeted on the charge of misconduct and wilful absence from duty under E & D Rules, 1975. He was directed by the Member WAPDA (respondent No.3) to appear before him for personal hearing before 31‑8‑1979, but he did not appear and failed to explain his conduct. Ultimately respondent No.3 dismissed him from service vide impugned order dated 28‑12‑1987. The appellant then filed departmental appeal which was also rejected by the Appellate Authority (respondent No.2). Hence the present appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with the assistance of the representatives of the Department with care.

4. During the course of arguments the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was sacked without applying the rules. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of WAPDA and the learned District Attorney seriously opposed the appeal and argued that the impugned orders passed by respondents are fully justified. Further argued that the present appeal filed on behalf of appellant is not within the prescribed period of limitation and contended that the penalty awarded be allowed to stand.

5. On a careful perusal of the facts of the case it is apparent that the appellant has been found guilty of gross misconduct. He exploited the holy cause of Umra and joined service in foreign country without getting prior permission of the Authority. He stayed as long as about 9 years and then to disguise his guilt applied for extension in leave without reporting back in the Department. He even filed the present appeal sitting abroad and never appeared in person before this Court.

6. Having heard the parties at length and after having gone through the file we have given our anxious thought to the submissions advanced by the parties and reached the following conclusions:‑ (1) That the appellant while working as Director of Design applied for three months' leave ex‑Pakistan w.e.f. 18‑5‑1978 which was granted by respondent No.3. While abroad he joined private service in Saudi Arabia and in this way he violated the Government instructions and absented himself from duty. He played a trick and concealing the facts applied for extension in leave ex‑Pakistan. This action of his held him guilty of gross misconduct; (2) that on coming in the knowledge of authorities he was proceeded against under the E & D Rules, 1975. He was given show‑cause notice and ample opportunity to be heard in person was given to him which he did not avail. He was aware of the fact that proceedings under E&D Rules had been initiated against him but he paid no heed and ‑ did not care at all; (3) that the appellant never returned to Pakistan and instead of joining enquiry proceedings, he tries to prolong this action to be taken against him on one pretext or the other, (4) that appellant was given show‑cause notice by the respondent No.3 being competent authority. He was called for personal hearing in accordance with statutory provisions and was dismissed from service by observing all legal formalities by respondent No.3. Thus impugned orders of the respondents are unexceptionable.

7. The appellant's departmental appeal was rejected by respondent No.2 on 13‑3‑1988 while the appellant filed the present appeal before this Tribunal on 7‑6‑1988 which is barred by time, by about two months. Thus the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts we find no reason to interfere in the impugned orders passed by respondents. Resultantly the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./ 431 /Sr. P Appeal dismissed.