2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑‑Condition precedent‑‑ Raising any substantial question of law of public importance was‑, sine qua non for grant of leave to appeal under Art.212(3) of the Constitution. Aziz Ahmed Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th March, 2003. FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.‑‑‑This petition is directed against judgment dated 21‑8‑2002 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No. 1841 of 2001.

2. The respondent, while serving as Agricultural Officer (PP) Bhakkar, made an application on 17‑4‑1999 for retirement from service on the ground of ailment of his wife. He was transferred to Sheikhpura from where he absented from duty on 16‑8‑1999. He was proceeded against under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The Inquiry Officer recommended for his retirement from service by treating the period of his absence from duty as extraordinary leave without pay. Nevertheless, he was removed from service, by order dated 16‑4‑2001, effective from 16‑8‑1999, passed by the petitioner No.2. He preferred departmental appeal before petitioner No. l which remained undecided. Therefore, he filed, Service Appeal No. 1841 of 2001 before the Tribunal which was accepted by the impugned judgment dated 21‑8‑2002. The period of absence from duty from 16‑8‑1999 to 25‑5‑2000 was treated as extraordinary leave without pay and the period from 26‑5‑2000 to 30‑11‑2000. of his suspension from service was treated as leave of the kind due. The petitioner was allowed to retire from service from the date of order of removal from service i.e. 16‑4‑2001.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Tribunal was not justified to convert the penalty of removal from service into retirement. It was submitted the absence of the respondent from duty had been duly proved during the course of inquiry.

4. We have heard the learned counsel at length. We find that the Inquiry Officer had also recommended for the retirement of, the respondent from service by treating his period of absence as extraordinary leave without pay. The application of the respondent seeking early retirement from service was not decided at all by the departmental authorities. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in converting the order of removal of respondent from service into his retirement from service. The learned counsel was unable to raise any substantial question of law of public importance which was sine qua non for grant of leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. S.A.K./S‑82 Petition dismissed