1990 PLP 1170 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The Government of the Punjab seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 22‑9‑1984 allowing the appeal of the respondent.

2. The respondent Mr. Zahid Beg was employed as Physiotherapy Aid in Mayo Hospital Lahore in 1972 when he was allowed to proceed on deputation to Libya. One of the conditions attaching to the deputation was expressed to be as hereunder:‑ "Government will have the right to ask the official to return to duty on the expiry of the period of deputation (not exceeding five years) or to quit service, if he is unwilling to return to the country."

3. Neither the Government reminded or recalled him from deputation nor did the respondent seek the extension of it but on return from Libya in 1983 he sought restoration to office which was at first denied to him but later given to him. He was nevertheless charge‑sheeted for having over‑stayed the period of deputation without authority and after observing the show cause procedure his services were terminated. The Service Tribunal while allowing the appeal held as hereunder:‑‑ "Above facts and history of the case reveal that the respondents as well as the appellant are responsible for the lapse. The appellant presumed extension of his deputation period with. Libyan Government by the implication on the basis of the terms and conditions of his deputation issued by the Punjab Health Department, vide letter dated 28‑11‑1972. On the other hand, the respondents did not direct the appellant to come back after the expiry of first deputation period in the year 1974 and they kept quiet for years together. The letter dated 23‑4‑1983 of the Government of the Punjab, Health Department (referred in Para.8 of this judgment) clearly mentions that the Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, after lapse of considerable period asked the appellant to report vide his letter No.EC/7380/MH dated 28‑3‑1983, where the appellant had already reported to the Health Secretariat for duty on 26‑3‑1983. Under the circumstances of the case, I hold that the respondents have dealt with the case of the appellant in haste, without due application of mind and the appellant has been treated harshly while imposing punishment on him. The upshot of the above discussion of the case is that the appeal is accepted, impugned orders dated 2‑8‑1983 and 22‑10‑1983 of respondents Nos. 2 and 1, respectively, are set aside. The appellant is reinstated in service. However, the period from 5‑12‑1974 to 25‑3‑1983 and from the date of the removal from service of the appellant i.e. 2‑8‑1983 till the date of reinstatement, shall be treated as extraordinary leave, without pay."

4. Mr.Farooq Bedar, the learned Additional Advocate‑General, contended that not only the respondent overstayed the period of deputation without authority, he inordinately delayed rejoining after his return from Libya. On that account too he was not deserving the relief.

5. The inquiry held against the respondent was directed towards his overstay while on deputation for two years. Nothing was said about his date of return and failure to report after that date. In view of the deputation terms, reproduced above, it was undertaken by the Government before terminating his services to have recalled him to duty and given an opportunity to him to rejoin. That having not been and keeping his lien on the post till that was not done, the Government cannot take benefit of its own omission. The Tribunal justifiably held that the failure of the petitioner created an impression in the mind of the respondent that he could remain on deputation till recalled or informed otherwise.

6. No question of law of public importance arises in the case and the leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./G‑244/S Leave refused.