1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 11th June, 1987. The relevant facts for disposal of this appeal under section -1 of the Tribunals Act arc that the appellant while serving its Assistant, applied on 18-9 1985 for sanction of L.P.R. The L.P.R. was sanctioned on 25-11-19$5 and it commenced from 1-1-1986 and was to expire on 31-12-198 The appellant proceeded on L.P.R. but before the expiry of the same submitted an application on 23-7-1986 to re.-join the Department and to continue his service. The respondent No 1, after the consideration of the application for cancellation of the remaining L.P.R. and to join duty, rejected the same vide memo, dated 31-8-1986. The main reliance was on the circular from tile Accountant-General Punjab which reads as under:-- "Once L.P.R. has been sanctioned, it can neither be withdrawn or its date altered." The appellant, thereafter, put in representation with the respondent No. 2 who proceeded to reject the same vide memo dated 3-3-1987. The present appeal was filed by the appellant on 10-12-1986 as his representation had not been disposed of by the respondent No. 2 within 911 days.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for appellant and gone through the file. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was well within his rights to revoke the remaining part of the 1-P.R. and for that matter he relied on PLD 1973 Quetta 4 wind A.I.R. 1954 Supreme Court 584 and also unreported decision of the Tribunal in Appeal No. 320/243 of 1983 titled Rafi Ullah vs. Divisional Forest Officer and 2 others decided by the Tribunal on 1.1-1-1954. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that this order of the Tribunal although was challenged by the Government in tile Supreme Court of Pakistan yet the operation of the same was not suspended. The learned counsel wanted to spell out from this refusal of interim order that the Supreme Court has, also, given its blessing to the order passed by the Tribunal. In addition to this the learned counsel, also, referred to leave granting orders in 1988 SCMR 1536, and titled Secretary to Government of Punjab, Food & Coop. Vs. Shamoun Bahadur. I have checked up and find that appeal of Punjab Province vs. Shamoun Bahadur was accepted by the Hon able Supreme Court vide judgment dated 10-4-1978 reported as P L D 1979 SC

835. This point once again came for decision before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Province of Punjab Vs. Muhammad lqbal, reported as 1984 SCMR

334. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court while distinguishing the PLD 1973 Quota 4, AIR 1954 SC 584 followed PLD 1979 SC 83.5 and referred to paragraph 8 of the memorandum issued by Finance. Department on 27-4-1976 which provided that such "an offer or intimation, once submitted, shall be final and shall not be allowed to be modified or withdrawn." When this memorandum is compared with the memorandum already referred to and relied by the respondent No. 1 in the order it is clear that the sum and substance of both the memos is the same. The rationale behind these memos seems to be that the Government may not have to make adjustments time and again; the officials may not take undue benefit by asking for duty after enjoying substantial part of leave and lastly the power to repent or to recede (locus poenitentiae is exhausted after the (cave is sanctioned The learned Judges while accepting the appeal of the Province and dismissing the appeal of the respondents before the Tribunal referred to decision in case of Shamoun Bahadur and relevant portion is read as under:- "Nonetheless when the L.P.R. was about to come to an end the respondent, by an application dated 3rd,of June, 1971, showed his desire to withdraw his request which apparently was misconceived as on that date an effective order for his retirement had already been passed. The option having been once exercised, it did not tic in his mouth to go back on it in the context of the finality of the consequences ensuing there from by its acceptance:" The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:- "The law laid down incorporates and reflects the principle of locus poenitentiae, we accept the appeal, set aside the of the Service Tribunal and dismiss the claim put forward by the respondent. No order as to costs."

3. The upshot of this discussion is that the L.P.R. once sanctioned cannot be withdrawn. In view of this matter the orders of respondents Nos. t and 2 are in consonance with the dictum of the Supreme Court, therefore, do not call for any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. S.Q./217/Sr.P. Appeal dismissed.