1978 PLP 189 (PLC)

Abaidullah for Respondent DECISION The petitioner, Abdul Ghaffar was employed as driver In the Government Transport Service, Lyallpur. He eras dismissed from service on 19‑7‑1976, on the charge of "unauthorised prolonged absence from duty for more than ten days." He filed this petition for re‑instatement with back benefits.

2. The facts are undisputed. The petitioner was plying his bus on the Rawalpindi, Lyallpur route on 8‑5‑

76. Unfortunately, he met with an accident at Gujar Khan. The bus collided with a pedestrian who received serious injury. The petitioner took him to the Hospital. He died there within two hours. The police reached the spot and arrested the petitioner. The bus was also taken into the possession. The conductor went to Rawalpindi and broke the news in the office. Assistant Traffic Manager came to the spot, received the bus on superdari and sent it to Lyallpur.

3. The petitioner remained in the jail from 8‑5‑76 to 4‑8‑

76. He was ordered to be released by the Lahore High Court, Lahore. During this period the District Manager, Government Transport Service, Lyallpur sent a notice to the petitioner at his home address, Chak No. 92/JB, Tehsil Toba Tek Singh, District Lyallpur on 26.6‑

76. In this notice he was directed to report for duty within three days and in am of otherwise he would be dismissed from service. Obviously, the petitioner was in jail on that day. On 19‑7‑76 the following order was passed: "Mr. Abdul Ghafar Driver D‑121 who was reported absent from duty w. a f. 8‑5‑76 and served with Regd. A/D notice at his home address to resume duty ride Letter No FF/3321 dated 26‑7‑76 failed to resume his duty. His services are therefore, terminated w. e. f. 8‑5‑76 F. N. for his unauthorised prolonged absence from duty for more than 10 days." The order of termination, on the face of it, is illegal. It was stated on behalf of the respondent that the District Manager, Lyallpur had no knowledge abort arrest or detention of the petitioner in jail, and to he had to serve a notice to the petitioner at his home address. The statement is ridiculous. Soon after the accident an Assistant Traffic Manager had visited the spot and had taken the bus on superdari from the police. He must have known that the petitioner had been arrested by the police. The conductor of the bus was Suleman. He came with the bus at Lyallpur. He must have informed the Lyallpur staff about the arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner remained in jail for nearly three months. It in unbelievable that the District Manager did not know of the petitioner was in jail or not. He could not attend to his duty unless he was released and securing release was not within his control.

5. Neither any charge‑sheet was issued nor any inquiry was instituted. The petitioner was not afforded any chance to explain his long absence. The order of dismissal without affording any opportunity of defence is illegal. Accordingly, I hold that the termination order was illegal.

6. The petitioner said that after release he resumed duty and he has been working for nine days. This fact is not material for the purpose of this case.

7. For the reasons given above the petition is accepted and the respondent Is directed to re‑instate the petitioner with back benefits the period from 8‑5‑76 to 4‑8‑76 shall be treated as leave subject to title. Petition accepted.