1982 PLP 145 (PLC)

It has been reported by your Department Head that you are a habitual absentee and always absent from duty for 3 to 4 days without any leave or authorization. On checking your attendance record, it is also noted that you were absent on the following dates without proper authorization and information May 6th, 15th, 28th, 30th June 5th, 17th, 18th, 19th July 9th, 19th‑20th, 27th August 1st‑4th, 7th‑10th 27th September 1st, 2nd, 13th‑16th, October 1st, 2nd, 12th, 13th, 16th, 19th, 26th Please note that habitual absence is a misconduct under Standing Order Ordinance, 1.968. You are hereby directed to explain in writing as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you for habitual absence. Your explanation should reach the your explanation by 29th November, 1979." A perusal of the aforesaid charge‑sheet shows that the appellant during the period of six months had been absent without leave on no less than 25 occasions and that on four of those occasions the absence was for a continuous period of 2 to 4 days. Looking to the large number of occasions on which the appellant remained absent without leave within a comparatively short span of six months it cannot but be said that the appellant was habitual absentee from his duties. In the case of Shero alias Sher Mohammad v. State (P L D 1978 Kar.368) a learned Single Judge of the Karachi High Court has construed "habit" as follows :‑ "Habit implies a tendency or capacity resulting from the repetition of the same acts. It implies frequent indulgence in such acts connecting depravity of character."

3. Mr. Shahani sought to argue that the absence from duties by the appellant was due to circumstances beyond his control, including the illness of his wife, transport problems and family problems. In support of his contention Mr. Shahani relied upon the statement of Mr. Bonner, Executive Chief of the respondent hotel, before the Enquiry Officer. The statement of Mr. Bottner, should, however, be considered in relation to the question put to him. The relevant questions and answers in this behalf read as follows :‑ "Q. Did you gave him any verbal or written warning regarding his absence 7 A. Verbal. Several times. Q. Has he shown any improvement or what was the excuse ? A. Not really. Several family problems, transport and sickness."

4. It will be seen that it was the appellant himself who had given the excuse of family problems, sickness and transport problems for not being able to attend his duties on the days that he had remained absent. However, there is no tangible evidence on record to establish that there was any truth in these excuses. It was for the appellant to show and satisfy the management that there were valid grounds for his not being able to attend his duties. This he failed to do.

3. It was also sought to be argued by Mr. M. L. Shahani, that in the past the conduct of the appellant had been exemplary, but he was unable to cite any evidence in support of his contention. No question was put to the management either in the enquiry proceedings or before the learned Labour Court that the appellant had been regularly attending to his duties in the past. On the contrary there is the above abstract, which seems to suggest that several verbal warnings were given to the appellant for not attending to his duties.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal, I would, accordingly, concur in the findings of the learned Labour Court and dismiss this appeal in limine.