1977 PLP 94 (PLC)

The case of the applicant succinctly put is that on 10‑3‑1975 the respondent attended his duty late by one hour and left the office without any permission at 1‑30 p. m. and thereafter he did not turn up for more than 10 days which amounted to misconduct on his part, hence the instant application. Whereas the case of the respondent proceeds on the footing that he bad actually come one hour late and according to him he had handed over the leave application to one Muhammad Amin the employee of the applicant for the grant of leave and proceeded on leave without getting his leave sanctioned. I have heard the arguments of learned representatives of the parties. My attention has been drawn by learned representative for the applicant to para. 4 of his application in which it was specifically mentioned that on 10.3‑1975 the respondent attended his duty late by one hour and left the office at about 1‑30 p. m: without leave and did not turn up till the closing of his working hours on that day and that since then he continuously absented himself from duty without leave for more than 10 days, and thus committed misconduct. Similarly my attention has been drawn to Reply Statement of the respondent in which he admitted in specfic and candid terms that the allegations made in para. 4 of the application were not denied. This clear cut admission on the part of the respondent proves the act of misconduct beyond any shadow of doubt, and according to law the admitted issues need no proof. It appears that a better sense prevailed upon respondent by which he subsequently denied these allegations by way of his affidavit in evidence and according to him his admission in the Reply Statement was in. correct would not help him in any manner whatsoever. Therefore for this reason alone the misconduct on the part of the respondent stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Yet there are some more formidable circumstances, which prove the act of misconduct on the part of the respondent. According to the respondent he had given leave application to one Muhammad Amin although he admits in specific and candid terms that Muhammad Amin was not the competent authority to grant or reject the leave application. Similarly neither he examined Muhammad Amin in defence in this Court nor even he cross‑examined him during the course of enquiry proceedings whereby suggesting the factum of application having been given for leave. All these circumstances combined together go to show that the respondent had left the office without permission and continued to remain absent for more than 10 days without any leave application which amounts to clear cut case of misconduct on his part. My attention has been drawn by Mr. Hamid Siddiqui the learned representative of the respondent to the decision reported in 1965 P L C 36 in which it was held that permission to dismiss the official of the Union for misconduct connected with pending dispute‑opportunity to cross‑examine in domestic enquiry not afforded‑permission should not be granted. In my humble view this ruling is not applicable in the instant case as the words "misconduct connected with pending dispute" have been used whereas this act of respondent in remaining absent without any leave fore more than 10 days can under no stretch of imagination be construed to be connected with industrial dispute. It is quite an independent ands" subsequent act of the respondent, which has got nothing to do with pending dispute therefore the instant ruling is not applicable in the instant case. Therefore if a case of misconduct is brought home against employee the Management is competent and within its bounds to dismiss the employee. For these reasons I grant the permission to the applicant to dismiss the respondent from service.