1987 PLP 865 (SCMR)

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 4‑5‑1982, passed in case No.326/1255 of 1981). ‑‑‑ Ss. 14 & 15‑‑Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R.3‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑Misconduct‑ Wilful absence from duty‑‑Petitioner challenging order of Service Tribunal passed against him on grounds that charge of misconduct against him was vague; his involvement in criminal case was not proved; and that his absence from duty was not wilful‑‑Record of case showing that petitioner had replied to show‑cause notice through an undated letter which was received by competent authority after issuance of impugned order‑‑Service Tribunal, in spite of material against petitioner having already taken a lenient view and petitioners absence from duty being wilful, there was no reason to interfere‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Zafar Pasha Chowdhry, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) with Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Faiz Muhammad Bhatti Advocate Supreme Court with Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing‑ 1st February, 1985. MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑By this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 4‑5‑1982 on the ground that a civil servant, whenever is charge‑sheeted, the charges must be clear and specific so that he should be in a position to ‑understand the same and repel them, if he can; that in the present case, it is submitted that the charge was absolutely vague and incomprehensive as it relates to the threats allegedly held out by the petitioner against the inhabitants of the locality where he was posted, but strangely enough, not a single person was named nor the source of such information was disclosed; that the mere implication or allegation of involvement in a criminal case, in itself is no ground for holding a civil servant, guilty of misconduct; that the petitioner was alleged to be named as an accused person in a case under sections 420 and 406, P.P.C. The petitioner subsequently established his innocence and the report which was made against him was cancelled; that absence of the petitioner from duty was also not wilful as he had applied for leave on medical ground and his application was supported with a medical certificate and without holding an inquiry regarding the correctness or falsehood of the medical certificate the petitioner could not be held to have wilfully absented himself from duty.

2. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and can hardly agree with his line of arguments. The learned Tribunal hearing the parties, called for the record of the case wherein, it found that the petitioner had replied to the show‑cause notice through an undated letter which was received in the S.P's office on 21‑8‑1980 i.e. on day after the impugned order was issued. The learned Tribunal, in spite of the material against the petitioner, was inclined to take a lenient view as regards his absence from duty it was considered wilful, and, therefore, his appeal was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 4‑5‑1982. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Leave refused. Petition dismissed. M.I. /M‑65/S Petition dismissed.