2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Asif Nazir Awan for Appellant. Malik Ghulam Raza, District Attorney for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd July, 2006. JUDGMN ET K.B. ABID. (MEMBER-III).

The appellant was served Show-Cause Notice No.2267/PA dated 8-8-2006 containing the charge that the appellant remained absent for a period 24 days, one hour and 15 minutes on different dates. The appellant submitted reply to the Show-Cause Notice and pleaded that he is not guilty of the misconduct. The Competent Authority after affording the opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant concluded that the reasons forwarded by the appellant are not plausible. The penalty of reduction in pay by two stages was awarded to the appellant. The departmental representation against this order was finally disposed of by D.I.-G. Sheikhupura Range Lahore. The penalty was converted into stoppage of one increment for one year.

2. Aggrieved by the order of D.I.-G., Sheikhupura, service appeal has been filed in Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore.

3. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the appellant has been punished without conducting regular enquiry. The process of regular .enquiry was dispensed with vague allegations. Counsel has stated that leave on medical ground cannot be refused by the Authority. In case, there was doubt, the civil servant should have been referred to medical board for second opinion. Counsel has also pleaded that the orders have been passed without giving detail of period of absence. Actually, the period of 24 days absence is spread over 13 months.

4. Respondents have opposed and stated that the appellant was found absent from duty for a period of 24 days and was not taking interest in performance of official duties. The departmental proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the rules and facts of the case.

5. Careful examination of the Show-Cause Notice reveals the vague charge of absence was levelled against the appellant. The authority has not mentioned detail of 24 days absence. Appellant on the other hand has claimed that he was patient of Diabetes and requested for medical leave. In this connection D.P.O., Kasur had also referred the appellant to Medical Superintendent, D.H.Q., Kasur. In case, there' was a definite detail of absence, the authority should have justified it from record. The plea of the appellant that he had properly applied for medical leave is supported from the record particularly letter dated 22-3-2004 of the Authority. The department has not furnished any reason about rejection of the medical leave. The orders of departmental authorities are against the Leave Rules 1981. The appeal is accepted. H.B.T./38/PST???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.