2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑Rr. 3(a), 4, 5, 6‑.‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑ Removal from service‑‑‑Wilful absence‑‑‑Ex parte disciplinary proceedings‑‑‑Dismissal of appeal by Service Tribunal ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Appeal before Tribunal filed about 15 years after dismissal of departmental representation being hopelessly time‑barred was rightly dismissed‑‑‑Various notices had been issued to civil servant, but all in vain and as a last resort a proclamation was got published in newspaper‑‑‑Nothing else could have been done by department‑‑‑Civil servant‑had reported for duty after four years of expiry of his deputation period‑‑‑Such period had rightly been considered as wilful absence amounting to misconduct‑‑‑Such apparent careless, callous and indifferent approach of civil servant and his lack of interest to rejoin duty would hardly need any elucidation or proble‑‑‑No question of law of public importance was involved‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal. Petitioner in Person. Respondents not represented. Date of hearing: 31st March, 2003. JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29‑5‑2000 passed by learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and the order concerning removal from service dated 14‑11‑1978 has been kept intact.

2. It is mainly contended that the learned Service Tribunal has misconstrued and misinterpreted the deputation policy as laid down in Letter No. S.O.R:‑II (S&GAD)‑2‑86/63 dated 8‑11‑1978 which resulted into serious miscarriage of justice. It is next contended that pursuant to said policy the petitioner has submitted his arrival report for resumpution of duties as soon as he was relieved from the borrowing authority which aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Service Tribunal without any rhyme and reason. It is further contended that the petitioner could not have been proceeded ex parte and the controversy should have been resolved on the basis of full‑fledged inquiry which was never conducted causing a serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is also argued that no proper substituted service whatsoever was made in spite of the fact that latest address of the petitioner was available with the Government of the Punjab (Health Department).

3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of record of the case. After having gone through the entire record it appears that learned Service Tribunai was approached after more than a‑decade. It is an admitted feature of the case that the departmental representation was rejected on 5‑7‑1981 and A appeal before the Service Tribunal was Referred on 11,‑4‑1997 after about 15 years which being hopelessly barred by time has rightly been dismissed. Ex parte disciplinary proceedings were fully justified as every reasonable effort was made by the department to contact the petitioner but in vain. There is no denying the fact that various notices were issued and as last resort a proclamation was also got published in the newspapers. In our considered view nothing else could have been done by the department. It is to be noted that the deputation period or petitioner was expired in March, 1977 and' he reported for duty on 8‑4‑1981 after about four years and thus intervening period has rightly been considered as wilful absence amounting to misconduct. The careless, callous and indifferent approach of the petitioner and his lack of interest to rejoin duty are so apparent that it hardly needs any elucidation or probe.

4. The conclusion as arrived at by the learned Service Tribunal being unexceptionable hardly warrants any interference. Besides that no question of law of public importance is involved in the matter. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave declined. S.A.K./G‑8/S Leave refused.