2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.

This petition by the Government of Punjab is directed against a judgment dated 17-5-2001 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.3351 of 1999.

2. While working as a Paediatrician in the Tehsil Headquarter Hospital, Khan Pur, Dr. Shehzad Ali Bokhari respondent was found absent from duty. He was consequently charge-sheeted and proceedings were commenced against him under the Punjab Civil Servants. (E & D) Rules 1975. The Director-General Health Services, Punjab was appointed as the Authorised Officer while the Director Health Services, D.G. Khan was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. As a result of the said proceedings, a minor penalty of stoppage of increment for one, year was awarded to the respondent through an order dated 7-7-1993. The respondent then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 which was allowed through the impugned judgment dated 17-5-2001 as a result whereof the, said penalty awarded to the respondent was set aside and the Competent Authority was directed to take up the disciplinary proceedings afresh.

3. The only reason which had weighed with the learned Tribunal in accepting the appeal was that the penalty in question had been imposed on the respondent without conducting a proper inquiry and without affording on opportunity to the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses and produce his defence.

4. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and we have also gone through the available record with the assistance of the learned counsel representing the parties.

5. The basic accusation against the respondent was that he has absented himself from duty without obtaining leave from the Competent Authority. The case of the respondent was that he had submitted an application for the grant of five years `extraordinary leave and it was his own admission that he had left the charge without waiting for the sanctioning of the leave. He could not produce any document at any stage of the proceedings initiated against him or during the c9urse of his appeal before the learned Service Tribunal or even before us whereby he could establish that he had been relieved from his duties by the Competent Authority in accordance with law or that he had left his duty after the leave allegedly applied by him had been sanctioned. This was not the kind of allegation which warranted any detailed inquiry or examination and cross-examination of witnesses etc. In the circumstances the learned Tribunal was in error in having set aside the penalty in question on the ground that no detailed inquiry had been held in the matter and that no opportunity had been offered to the respondent to cross7examine the witnesses or to produce his own defence.

6. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The impugned order imposing penalty on the respondent had been passed on 7-7-1993. The respondent filed the appeal before the learned Tribunal sometimes in the year 1999 which was more than six years after the passing of the impugned order. The appeal before the learned Service Tribunal was thus hopelessly barred by time and the learned Tribunal had failed to attend this aspect of the matter. We have on record a communication allegedly addressed by the respondent to the Health Secretary which is described as a departmental representation but there is no evidence that this departmental representation was ever sent to the Secretary or was ever received by him. There is then a communication dated 4-11-1999 emanating from the Health Department and sent to Dr.. Shehzad respondent which has reference to his application dated 13-9-1999 sent by the respondent to the Health Secretary. Even this application dated 13-9-1999 submitted by Dr. Shehzad Bukhari cannot be treated as a departmental appeal and in any case the same had been submitted more than six years after the passing of the impugned order. The respondent could not establish that he had filed any departmental appeal which had remained pending for more than six years. Be that as it may, even if it be presumed for the sake of arguments that any such departmental appeal had in fact been filed by the respondent within the prescribed time in the year 1993 then there is no reason offered as to why the respondent did not approach the learned Tribunal after his appeal had remained unanswered for 90 days. In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the respondent before the learned Service Tribunal was not maintainable being hit by limitation and even on this score the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

7. Consequently this petition is converted into appeal which its allowed. The impugned judgment dated, 17-5-2001 passed by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore in .the respondent's Appeal No.3351 of 1999 is set aside. No orders as to costs. S.A.K./S-313/SC Appeal allowed.