1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 3.1-10-1988 of respondent No.3 vide which he was dismissed from service with effect from 2-10-1988, appellant had preferred the present appeal after availing the departmental remedies on the grounds that he was granted earned leave from 21-2-1987 to 23-3-1987 but unfortunately he fell ill during this period and two weeks medical leave was sanctioned to him. However he could not recover from illness and went to Karachi after applying for leave without pay for two years and where came back to his native place on 30-9-1988 he appeared before respondent No. 3 on 3-10-1988 where he was informed that on the ground of absence from duty he had been dismissed from service with effect from 2-10-1988. He preferred an appeal to respondent No.2 on 31-10-1988 but the same was rejected vide order dated 12-12-1988; hence this appeal on the ground that he was condemned unheard, that no opportunity of hearing was given to him, that he was not proceeded under the N.W.F.P. (E&D) Rules, 1973 read with Police Rules, 1975 and that his long service for about 12 years was not taken into consideration while taking this drastic action against him. Respondents refuted the allegations of the appellant by saying that he has got no cause of action, that this Court has no jurisdiction that the appeal is liable for dismissal on account of mis-joinder of necessary parties and that the appellant being an employee of a disciplined force was rightly dismissed from service on account of his conduct. Further it was alleged by them that he did not fell ill but went abroad for two years without the sanction of leave and accordingly he is not entitled to any concession. Arguments heard and the record perused. It is an established law that a person coming to the Court must come with clean hands. First he must fulfil the conditions to be a gentleman official and then request the Court for the concession which was refused to him by the departmental authorities. In the instant case he was granted earned leave followed by medical leave but during this period he left for Karachi after leaving application for leave without pay. It teas incumbent upon hint to approach the authority concerned for the grant of leave without pay in order to satisfy his conscience that the appellant requires the said leave in good faith. Leave is not a right of an individual, but the sanctioning authority has the pre-rogative to accept or reject the plea of an employee, in the light of the circumstances contained in the application submitted to him. He did not adhere to the said principle. It is an established law that a person coming to the Court must come with clean hands. First he must fulfill the conditions to be a gentleman official and then request the Court for the concession which was refused to him by the departmental authorities. In the instant case he was granted earned leave followed by medical leave but during this period he left for Karachi after leaving application for leave without pay. It was incumbent upon him to approach the authority concerned for the grant of leave without pay in order to satisfy his conscience that the appellant requires the said leave in good faith. Leave is not a right of an individual, but the sanctioning authority has the pre-rogative to accept or reject the plea of an employee, in the light of the circumstances contained in the application submitted to him. He did not adhere to the said principle. Respondents on the other hand tried to obtain his service through ordinary means and on their failure they issued a proclamation in the daily newspaper 'Sarhad', Peshawar. The appellant failed to attend the office hence he was proceeded against ex parte. There being no merits in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed; leaving the parties to bear their own costs and file be consigned to the record room. A.A./127/Sr.N Appeal dismissed.