1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN): Appellant Manzoor Ahmad was a Naib-Qasid in the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Shikarpur when he was removed from service vide Deputy Commissioner's order, dated 14th May, 1986. The departmental appeal preferred by the appellant to the Commissioner did not succeed as the same was rejected by the Commissioner's order dated 16th March, 1987. Having exhausted the departmental remedy available to the appellant, he filed the present appeal with prayer that the order passed by Respondent No. 2 (Commissioner Sukkur) be set aside arid the appellant be reinstated in service. After hearing Mr. K. Ali Shaikh for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori on behalf of official respondents the appeal was dismissed by short order dated 25th May, 1988 for reasons to be recorded separately. Following are the reasons in support of the said short order:-- The appellant was served with a show-cause notice on 29th March, 1986 which reads as under:-- "Whereas it has been observed that you are in habit of availing of self granted leave and leaving the office before closing hours without obtaining prior permission of your superiors. (2) Whereas you are not attending any work in the office and always slip away and conceal your presence and in fact you are unfit to be retained in Government service and are extra burden over Government Exchequer and, therefore, you need to be shunted out from service. (3) Whereas you remained absent on 4th, 5th arid 6th March, 1986 without getting any leave/permission from the superior officers. Now, therefore, you are called upon to show cause as to why major penalty which may even entail removal from service may not be awarded to you under the provisions of Sind Civil Servants4E&D) Rules, 1973. Your reply should reach the undersigned within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice failing which ex parte action will be taken." It is clear from the above show-cause notice that the appellant was in the habit of availing self-granted leave and leaving the office without permission of his superiors before closing hours. Other charge against him was that he was not attending to any work in the office always slipping away and concealing his presence. It was further alleged that he remained absent on 4th, 5th and 6th March, 1986 without intimation. Even though the appellant's previous acts of omission and commission were obviously tolerated, he was given show-cause notice after his continued absence for three days w.e.f. 4th Match, 1986. By the said show-cause notice he was called upon to furnish explanation within 15 days of the receipt thereof. The appellant submitted his explanation on 2-4-1986 which is available on record: We have gone through his explanation minutely. The appellant has clearly admitted in his explanation that he had remained absent for the specified period of three days. However, his explanation is that on the night of 4th March, 1986, his condition took a serious turn inasmuch as that he became unconscious and, therefore, he could not attend the office upto 6th March, 1986, nor could he intimate his officers as he had nobody in his house to convey his message to his office. Despite this he frankly admitted in his explanation that it was a mistake on his part for which he prayed to be excused, promising further that he would not repeat such mistake in future. Obviously the appellant's such explanation did not impress the Deputy Commissioner in whose office he was working. It would appear that the appellant was put on notice not only for his unauthorised absence on 4th, 5th and 6th March, 1986 but also for his being habitual in availing self-granted leave, and leaving the office before closing of office hours, and not attending to any work in office and always slipping away from office and concealing his presence. As regards the earlier part of the notice, the appellant has not uttered a word in his defence. Thus, the allegations contained in that part of the notice have gone absolutely unchallenged. All that the learned counsel for the appellant stated before us was that the- appellant had submitted a reasonable explanation. He, however, did not elaborate how the appellant's explanation which has been discussed above was reasonable. On one hand he makes a frank admission about his unauthorised absence for three days (4th, 5th and 6th March, 1986) and on other hand remains quiet as regards the allegations of his want on habit as mentioned above. From the orders of both the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner it is clear that they were satisfied that the appellant was a burden on public exchequer and was unfit to be retained in service. Looking to their higher status, we have no reason to believe that they would condemn the appellant who was merely a Naib-Qasid without an justification or that their judgment was influenced by any prejudice or any lapse motions. Even the appellant himself had not attributed mala fides to the above officers. For above reasons the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Shikarpur which was subsequently up-held by the Commissioner, Sukkur is unexceptionable and, therefore, no interference by this Tribunal is called for. Accordingly we dismissed the appeal by short order referred to above. S.Q./154/Sr.S Appeal dismissed.