1998 PLP 1380 (SCMR)

SALEEM AKHTAR, J.

The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the federal Service Tribunal, whereby by majority his appeal was dismissed.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Sepoy by the respondent on 9-4-1985. He was transferred by order dated 17-10-1985 from Bahawalpur to Circle-I Multan and was relieved of his duties by order dated 22-10-1985. He was thereafter posted at Zonal Office Multan and was relieved on 19-11-1985. Thereafter, the. petitioner did not join duty. It seems that he applied for 3 days leave. on 19-11-1985 but did not return oil duty thereafter. It was alleged by the petitioner that after 16 days he reported on duty but he was not allowed to join. The petitioner seems to have made application to the Member, C.B.R. and the Second Secretary, C.B.R. by letter dated 21-12-1993 directed him to appear before the Collector of Customs, Multan. As he had been absent from duty for a very long time, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was served with a show-cause notice which was replied by him. In the show-cause notice, it was alleged that after a lapse of 8 years he had approached the Central Board of Revenue with a request to allow him to join the duty. It was further stated that during his absence from 19-1-1985 onwards he did not bother to join the duties or tried to make any correspondence with the office and kept the office in the dark about his whereabouts. In reply the petitioner stated that he tried to join the office but each time evasive reply was given and he was not allowed to join the service. The Deputy Collector, Customs--the authority, removed him from service by order dated 27-3-1984 with effect from 19-11-1985. Not succeeding in departmental appeal, the petitioner filed appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed by the impugned majority judgment.

3. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, full-fledged inquiry ought to have been held and the petitioner should have been allowed to defend himself by producing oral and documentary evidence. The learned counsel referred to certain documents placed on record to show that in 1986, 1988, 1990 and 1992, the petitioner had made representations to ttie departmental authorities for redress but no relief was, granted to him. The charge against the petitioner was that he had remained absent for a very long time from 1985 to 1993 and had agitated for joining the duty after a lapse of about 8 years. These letters referred to now do not improve the case of the petitioner, as they were not produced before the Assistant Collector who was inquiring into the matter. It has clearly been stated by the Deputy Collector in his order that on 30th January 1994, the petitioner had appeared before the Assistant Collector, Central Excise & Sales Tax, Multan and failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that he had been contracting or addressing letter to the various departmental authorities. The documents referred herein were filed before the Tribunal but the learned Chairman. and the learned Member were not impressed by it as it'obvious from their observation that the petitioner had remained absconded from duty from 19-11-1985. This seems to be the finding by all the three learned Members. In these circumstances when unauthorised absence from duty is proved on record, there was no need' to hold any full-fledged inquiry. The learned counsel has referred to Alamgir v. Divisional Forest Officer, Multan (1993 SCMR 6Q3) in which relying on Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore and another v Anis-ur-Rahman Khan (PLD 1985 SC 134) it was observed that "For resolving controverted questions of fact where evidence has to be recorded and opportunity of cross-examination has to be given, the proper course is always to hold a full-fledged inquiry. Otherwise, the findings recorded as in this case, will be based more on conjectures than on evidence/material available on record properly produced and accepted." There is no cavil with this proposition because in the present case the facts were simple and undisputed and the petitioner had not produced any documentary or oral evidence to prove that during the period 1985 to 1993 he had been reporting on duty and was not allowed to join. Leave is refused. M.B.A./R-15/S Leave refused