1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

KH. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF (MEMBER).‑‑Muhammad Bashir, ex -Warder, District Jail, Muzaffargarh has filed the present appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against his removal from service imposed by Superintendent, District Jail, Muzaffargarh vide his order dated 11‑3 1985 and subsequently upheld by the respondents Nos. 2 and

3. He has impleaded the Superintendent Jail, Muzaffargarh, Inspector‑General of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore and Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Home Department, Lahore as respondents.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as Warder in District Jail when he absented himself from duty without leave or permission for 19 days w.e.f. 29‑5‑1985 to 17‑7‑1985, consequently, the appellant was served with a charge‑sheet and show‑cause notice for his wilful absence from duty under Punjab Prisons Subordinates (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1982 calling upon him to explain why he should not be dismissed from service. In reply to the charge‑sheet appellant submitted that his son was seriously ill, therefore, he left the duty. Consequently, the appellant was removed from service by Superintendent, District Jail, Muzaffargarh vide his order dated 11‑3‑1985. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Inspector‑General (Prisons), Punjab, Lahore which was heard and dismissed by Deputy Inspector‑General (Prisons), Punjab, Lahore vide his order dated 19‑10‑1985. The appellant then filed revision before the Government against his removal from service which too was rejected by the Government. Hence the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.

3. The appeal of the appellant after preliminary hearing was admitted for notices were sent to the respondents who filed the written objections controverting the averments of the appellant.

4. We have made deep appraisal of the entire record and all attendance circumstances of the case. We have heard at length the learned counsel for the appellant and learned District Attorney in this behalf. The appellant has not challenged the impugned order of his removal from service on any ground to show that it suffered from any legal infirmity but he admitted in para. 1 of his appeal that he was removed from service by respondent No. 1 after observing departmental procedure. As regards facts, the appellant's stand is that he left his duty on getting leave and permission from Deputy Superintendent Jail, Muzaffargarh to attend his ailing son but the same is not substantiated from the record. It has been denied by the respondent that the Deputy Superintendent Jail ever granted leave or permission to the appellant nor he was competent to do so. Furthermore, the appellant has not produced any evidence or medical certificate to support his contention, that his son was ill. In the impugned order the Superintendent, District Jail has mentioned that the appellant was found roaming in bazar during the period of his absence. The wilful absence of the appellant is established from the record and we have no reason to differ with the findings of the departmental authority. We have examined the service record of the appellant which is not complementary. The appellant during his 17 years service absented A himself from duty as many as 14 times and has suffered as many as 18 punishments on different occasions. In view of the long service of 17 years of the appellant we feel that it will meet the ends of justice if his removal from service is converted into his compulsory retirement from service.

5. In the light of the above discussion the impugned order of appellant's removal is modified to the extent that his removal from service is converted into compulsory retirement. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

6. There will be no order as to costs. A.A./243/Sr. P Order accordingly.