1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑Mukhtar Ahmad Shakar has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, against the order of respondent No. 2 by which he has passed the order for sanctioning the leave of the present appellant from 23rd January, 1977 to 2nd January, 1981 without leave and the appellate order passed by Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Multan, by which he rejected his appeal. The appellant has impleaded the province of the Punjab through the Secretary, Irrigation, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Multan Region, Multan and the Superintending Engineer, Hqrs. Multan, as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the leave so sanctioned without pay may be sanctioned with pay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was granted 1 month and 15 days leave from 1st November, 1976 on private affairs, vide order dated 12th November, 1976. The appellant availed of the same from 19th November, 1976 to 2nd January, 1977 and was due back, on 3rd January, 1977. The appellant failed to join the duties and applied for study leave for 4 years from 3rd January, 1977 to 2nd January, 1981. His leave case, which was received in the Chief Engineer's Office was returned to the Superintending Engineer, Derajat Circle enquiring from the appellant whether he had applied for admission in B. Sc. Engineering class through proper channel. The Superintending Engineer was asked to direct the appellant to apply for grant of ordinary leave for study purpose in view of advice of Finance Department received by the Chief Engineer, Multan, through the Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, dated 19th January, 1977. The Superintending Engineer, Derajat Circle was also authorised to act as Authorised Officer and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, for not submitting the application for admission to B. Sc. Engineering Class through proper channel. After consideration of the case, Superintending Engineer, Derajat Circle, being Authorised Officer, exonerated the appellant of the charge, vide his letter dated 29th June, 1977 with the recommendation to accept the request of the appellant for grant of study leave. Since the Superintending Engineer Deralat Circle, being Authorised Officer, was not empowered to exonerate the appellant under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, he was advised to withdraw his decision and take up the enquiry de novo and decide the issue on merits as required under the rules. The appellant was again proceeded under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, by the Autho rised Officer and it was recommended by him to exonerate the appellant of the charge. vide his letter, dated 24th March, 1981. The recommendations of the Authorised Officer were not accepted by the Authority, as the case had already been decided by the Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, vide his letter dated 6th November, 1979. The appellant was censured by the Authorised Officer, vide his decision dated 15th July, 1981. In the meantime the Superintending Engineer, Derajat Circle was advised to furnish the case for grant of leave other than study leave, due to the reasons that the action of the appellant, was not fair in getting admission in the Engineering University and could only be granted extra ordinary leave without pay for the purpose of study on production of surety bond as required under the rules. On receipt of surety bond, case for the grant of study leave to the appellant was submitted to the Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, vide Chief Engineer, Multan's letter dated 9th April, 1979, with the recommendation to approach the Finance Department to accord sa6ction for study leave in favour of the appellant as a special case. Ultimately extraordinary leave was granted without pay for a period of 4 years from 3rd January, 1977 to 2nd January, 1981. A warning was issued to the appellant which was also placed in his A. C. R. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the depart ment and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department had no‑business to turn down the recommendations of the Superintending Engineer who not only once but twice suggested that the appellant's period of absence from duty may be treated as study leave as he had joined the university to enhance his qualification. Learned counsel for the appellant has further urged that the appellant should not have been punished by converting this period of 4 years into the leave without pay as the sentiment which motivated the appellant was laudable as he wanted to become more useful to the depart ment by equipping himself with better qualification. 6 On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the parawise comments of the respondents and has fully supported the stand so taken by them. 7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the com ments of the Chief Engineer, Multan as well as the arguments made by the learned District Attorney. 8. The fact of the matter is that the appellant did join the Engineer ing University without proper/prior permission of the authority through proper channel. It is also a fact proved on the record that, despite he was told to apply for study leave he declined to do so and failed to report for duty. When taking the fact into consideration that the appellant remained busy during this long period of 4 years, in enriching himself with further education, we cannot remain oblivious of the fact that the conduct of the appellant was against the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. We have taken into consideration the recommendations of the Superintending Engineer but find the same against the rules and regulations which have been prescribed in such cases. The proper course for the appellant should have been to apply for study leave through proper channel and once the same had been granted, he should have joined the university thereafter. The appellant should thank his stars that the secretary has not thrown him out of service for the act of indiscipline and in subordination and allowed him to continue in service by converting the period of his absence into leave without pay and awarding him a censure for the said lapse. In these circumstances, we are not persuaded by the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Secretary, Irrigation and Power Depart ment should have ignored this act of indiscipline and should have accepted the recommendations of the Superintending Engineer. 9. In view of the above we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. A.E Appeal dismissed.