2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑R.20‑‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Absent without leave‑‑‑ Dismissal from service‑‑Medical leave‑‑‑Failure to consult doctor in Government hospital‑‑ Civil servant was dismissed from service on the charge of absence from duty without leave‑‑‑Departmental Authorities having not been satisfied with the plea of serious illness of the civil servant dismissed him from service as the civil servant did not consult any doctor in Government hospital‑‑‑Order of dismissal was maintained by the Service Tribunal‑‑‑‑Civil servant contended that in case of leave on medical ground the Authority competent to sanction leave could secure second medical opinion but there was no justification either for refusal of leave or for initiation of departmental proceedings‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant failed to explain as to why he had not applied to the concerned Authorities for grant of leave on medical ground and for what reason he did not consult the doctor in Government hospital and inform the concerned quarters about his illness‑‑‑Service Tribunal having perused service record of the petitioner observed that he was habitual, wilful absentee without authorized leave and that such conduct was not in conformity with the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964‑‑ Tribunal for its satisfaction; could competently look into the service record of the civil servant and earlier absence of the civil servant was relevant to determine the present matter‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th July, 2002. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.‑‑‑This petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been preferred seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11‑9‑2001 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in service appeal. The petitioner who was a Senior Auditor in District Accounts Office, Mianwali, was issued a show‑cause notice dated 3‑1‑2001 for his absence from duty without permission and sanction of leave by the competent Authority. The petitioner was directed to resume duty and submit reply to the show‑cause notice wherein penalty of dismissal from service was proposed. The petitioner did not submit reply to the show‑cause notice within time given in the said notice and in consequence thereto, the Competent Authority vide order dated 29‑3‑2000 removed him from service. Subsequently, the petitioner in departmental appeal took the plea that due to serious illness he was advised bed rest by the doctor and an intimation was sent to the concerned quarters through post. The explanation was not found satisfactory by the Appellate Authority and appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Federal Service . Tribunal under section 4 of the Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973 also failed and was dismissed through the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that under rule 20 of the Revised Leave Rules, 1980, leave applied on medical ground cannot be refused and further if the leave is due and admissible to the civil servant, there is no need to specify the reason to avail the leave. The learned counsel contended that in case of leave on medical ground, the authority competent to sanction leave could secure second medical opinion but there was no justification either for refusal of leave or for initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner on such ground as the absence was not wilful. The learned counsel, however, has not been able to offer any satisfactory explanation that why the petitioner has not applied to the concerned authorities for grant of availing the leave on medical ground and for what reason he did not consult the doctor in the Government hospital and inform the concerned quarters about his illness. The tribunal having perused the service record of the petitioner observed that he was habitual, wilful absentee without authorized leave and that such conduct was not in conformity with the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier absence of the petitioner would not be relevant as the charge was confined to the extent of his last absence. We are afraid, the Tribunal for its satisfaction, could competently look into the service record of the petitioner. For the reasons given above, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case for grant of leave. The petition is, accordingly dismissed and leave is refused. Q.M.H./T‑36/S Petition dismissed.