1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑Rr. 4 & 5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Removal from service on account of unauthorised absence from duty for a period of about three years‑‑‑Validity‑‑Civil servant remained absent after expiry of medical leave‑‑ Petitioner failed to appear before Medical Board convened for him‑‑‑Civil servant was proceeded against for having remained absent for a number of years‑‑‑Show‑cause notice was issued to him through registered post acknowledgement due‑‑‑Show‑cause notice was then published in newspapers‑‑ Petitioner in spite of publication of such notices remained absent and failed to submit any explanation for which he was to blame himself‑‑‑Service Tribunal did not convert the penalty from removal to compulsory retirement or any other penalty and by not doing so, it did not commit any illegality warranting interference by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Amjad Hussain Syed, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 5th June, 1995. ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.‑‑‑This petition seeks leave to appeal from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 31‑10‑1993 whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against his removal from service has been dismissed.

2. Petitioner while serving as an Accountant under the Controller of Military Accounts was removed from service on 6‑10‑1983 in consequence of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on the allegation that he had remained absent for a period of about three years since 16‑9‑1980. It appears that to start with, petitioner proceeded on sick leave for four days from 15‑9‑1979 to 18‑9‑1979 with the approval of the competent Authority. This leave was extended from time to time till 16‑9‑1980 i.e. for a period of about one year on the basis of medical certificates produced by the petitioner. After 16‑9‑1980, he remained absent without leave until his removal from service on 6‑10‑1993.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has made a grievance that the order removing petitioner from service was passed without giving any show‑cause notice to him. The grievance appears to be ill‑founded. The order of the Service Tribunal shows that when the petitioner remained absent after the expiry of medical leave extended up to 16‑9‑1980, he was directed through letters dated 19‑2‑1981 and 30‑3‑1981 to appear before the Medical Board convened from 4‑4‑1981 to 8‑1‑1981 but he failed to comply with the direction and since he had remained absent without leave with effect from 17‑9‑1980, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for misconduct and a show‑cause' notice yeas issued to him under Rule 5(1)(iii) of the Rules calling upon him to show cause as to why he was absent without leave. The notice sent to the petitioner through registered post acknowledgement due was received back with the report that it was received by one Nusrat. Show -cause notice was then published in Daily Pakistan Times and Daily Mashriq. Petitioner, however, chose not to respond and failed to submit any explanation for which he was to blame himself. Be that as it may, the learned counsel has not been able to controvert the fact that petitioner had remained absent without leave for almost three years. In the circumstances, he was rightly held guilty of misconduct by the competent Authority.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next contended that the penalty of removal of service was too harsh which the Service Tribunal should have converted into compulsory retirement in view of the petitioner's unblemished service of twenty‑two years. The contention does not merit any serious consideration as the penalty to be awarded is a matter resting in the discretion of the competent Authority. It could impose any of the penalties provided in law including removal from service. It was of course open to the learned Service Tribunal to convert the penalty of removal from service into one of compulsory retirement or any other penalty but by not doing so, it did not commit any illegality warranting interference by this Court. No other point has been urged by the learned counsel. This petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. A.A.IA‑1341/S Leave refused.