1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent. S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑ Syed Afzal Hussain Rizvi, Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Secretary to Government of the Punjab, L. G. & R. D. Department, Punjab, Lahore and the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 29th April, 1980, passed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, by which his one year increment was stopped without cumulative effect, be set aside being without justification and lawful authority.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was transferred from Municipal Committee, Kasur and posted as Secretary, Town Committee, Pindi Bhattian, vide order, dated 22nd May, 1978. He made representation for the cancellation of transfer order which was rejected. However he joined Pindi Bhattian on 26th June, 1978 but soon after made another representation for transfer from Pindi Bhattian to some other place, which was also rejected. In September, 1978 he applied for 3 months ex‑Pakistan leave for performing Umra, which was sanctioned on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala. He proceeded on leave w. e. f. 15th October, 1978. On the expiry of leave, he applied for extension in leave which was sanctioned. Thereafter the appellant submitted another application of extension of leave on medical ground. However, the Deputy Commissioner reported that the appellant was avoiding posting at Pindi Bhattian and was an unwilling worker. The Deputy Commissioner also recommended that he should be removed from service. In view of the above, the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. In the said show‑cause notice, the main charge against the appellant was that he did not leave for Umra, the purpose for which leave was sanctioned but remained in Pakistan and that on the expiry of leave he did not report for duty at Pindi Bhattian and applied for leave on medical grounds for 2 months, furnishing a certificate from a private medical practitioner. The appellant denied all the charges. He was heard in person and plead ed that actually he had two sons, who were college gong, therefore, it was not possible for him to work at Pindi Bhattian. Learned Commis sioner was not impressed by his pleadings but taking long years of service of the appellant, in view, he took lenient view of the matter and punished the appellant with minor penalty for stoppage of one year's increment without cumulative effect. 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 department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appel lant could not leave for Umra due to disturbed conditions in Iran as the Iran Government did not permit him to make journey to holy places through their territory. For his not joining his place of duty viz. Pindi Bhattian, after the expiry of the said leave. Learned counsel for the appel lant submitted that the appellant fell ill therefore, he could not do so. It has been .further submitted that as soon as he was declared fit he proceed ed for Pindi Bhattian to join the duty, but unfortunately he met an accident on the way and he again fell ill. With regard to the observa tion of the learned Commissioner that the appellant had made a false statement with regard to the fact that he has two college‑going sons and on verification of the same, it was found that only one son was college going and that he too, had left the college before the appellant was posted at Pindi Bhattian, appellant has submitted that this had happened due to some misunderstanding whereas there was no intention on the part of the appellant, to make a false statement. Learned' counsel for the appellant, besides the above submission on merit has also challenged the impugned order on the ground that show‑cause notice under section 6 (3) of the E & D Rules, 1975, cannot be issued by respondent No. 2 because the respondent No. 2 was the authority of the appellant. According to the learned counsel this notice should have been issued by the Authorised Officer who was the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, which has not been done so.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has vehemently contested all the claims so made by the appellant and has submitted that the Commissioner took a very lenient view of the matter, otherwise his false statement as well as his positive admission, not to obey the order of transfer, was an act of serious misconduct for which he should have been removed from service. With regard to the legal objection, it has been submitted that rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 vests in the Authority who delegates this power to the Autho rised Officer, therefore, the main repository of power is the authority who can legally exercise this power in any case.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties before us and find that the charge of making false statement, stands fully proved on the record, as it was verified by the Deputy Com missioner that the appellant had only one college‑going son and he too, had left the college before the appellant was transferred to Pindi Bhattian. This fact on the record clearly shows that the appellant was reluctant to work at Pindi Bhattian and on one pretext or another, he tried to escape from the place where he was posted. The very fact that he was granted leave for Umra but he did not avail of the same and remained in Pakistan, also highly reflects on his conduct as if he could not travel by land route, he could have gone to Jeddah by Air to perform this religious obligation. His further admission to get his leave extended and that too on medical ground on the basis of a certificate obtained from a medial practitioner, speaks volumes about the fact that he was unwilling to stay at Pindi Bhattian.

8. In view of the above, we have no reason to interfere with the impugned order so passed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, which is fair, just as well as lenient in nature, taking into consideration of pretty long years of service of the appellant. The result is we proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs. A. E. Appeal dismissed.