2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7‑8‑2000 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in 1962 in PTCL as Telephone Operator and subsequently promoted as Telecom. Technician in the year 1968 and thereafter further promoted as Engineer Supervisor and proceeded abroad after having ex- Pakistan leave which was sanctioned in his favour by means of order' dated 26‑4‑1975 w.e.f. 7‑5‑1975. The petitioner did not join his department and applied for extension of leave for three months and thereafter according to him on account of serious ailment he remained confined to bed but informed the department regarding his ailment duly supported by medical certificate. On 5‑9‑1990 the petitioner came back and submitted his joining report which was not allowed. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated on account of wilful absence which culminated into dismissal of his service. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred before the authority concerned which was rejected on 29‑3‑1992. As a last resort the Service Tribunal was approached by means of Appeal bearing No. 1924(L) of 1998 which has been dismissed, hence this petition.

3. Mian Mahmood Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of petitioner and contended that the factum of wilful absence could not be proved on the basis of cogent and concrete evidence which aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Service Tribunal which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that the petitioner could not resume his duties on account of serious ailment and the department was' informed in time but no action whatsoever was taken and the application submitted for grant of leave was never decided. It is also contended that no regular inquiry was made to unveil the reality and therefore, the penalty of removal could not have been imposed and on this score alone the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside.

4. Mr. Muhammad Din Ghorsi, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of caveators and supported the judgment impugned for the reasons enumerated therein with further submission that the petitioner proceeded abroad for one month and returned after fifteen years and for such a long absence no plausible justification could be furnished. It is also contended that the judgment impugned is strictly in accordance with law and free from any legal ambiguity or infirmity.

5. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties in the light of record of the case. The judgment impugned has been perused carefully. We are not persuaded to agree with the prime contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court that in absence of regular inquiry the penalty of dismissal could not have been imposed for the simple reason that regular inquiry could be dispensed with by the Authority concerned if circumstances so justify. The petitioner had never denied that he remained absent for 15 years. There is no denying the fact that one month ex‑Pakistan leave was sanctioned on 26‑4‑1975 in favour of petitioner and he submitted his joining report to resume his duties on 5‑9‑1990 after the expiry of 15 , years and no plausible justification could be furnished for such a long wilful absence. The learned Advocate Supreme Court when asked as to how such a long period of wilful absence could have been ignored, no satisfactory answer could be given and rightly so because there could be. no answer. No leave whatsoever was sanctioned in favour of petitioner' by the department and he remained abroad unauthorizedly. A careful scrutiny of the record is indicative of the fact that an inquiry was got conducted by the department and his service appeal was dismissed after having taken into consideration all the prose and cons of the case by the competent authority on 29‑3‑1992. The Service Tribunal was approached on 30‑11‑1998 after about six years and that too without moving any application for condonation of this inordinate delay. The appeal filed before the Service Tribunal was thus hopelessly barred by 1 time. Besides that what has been stated above the wilful absence for 15 long years has been proved and no justification worth the name could be furnished for such wilful absence. The Service Tribunal has examined the entire record with diligent application of mind and no illegality whatsoever could be pointed out by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for petitioner warranting interference in the judgment impugned. The learned Service Tribunal has examined all the contentions as agitates before it vide judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below for ready reference:‑‑ "

4. We have heard the arguments of the parties and also perused the record placed before us and also gone through the written arguments, submitted by the parties. On perusal of the appeal filed by the appellant and the documents annexed with it, we find that the appellant has not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. The appellant, in his appeal has not been able to explain satisfactorily the period spent abroad and has only said that he was not in a position to resume duty due to his sickness and circumstances, prevailing during those days. The appeal of the appellant only speaks till the submission of Medical certificate and not beyond that which, too, was submitted in the year 1975. Even after submission of, joining report and rejection of request by the department, the appellant has not approached this Tribunal within the period prescribed by law and waited till 30‑11‑1998 which means that the appellant had further spent eight years in approaching this Tribunal and preferred the instant appeal, on 30‑11‑1998 which is highly/hopelessly time‑barred.

5. Apart from the question of limitation, even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments, that the appellant was in a stage of affairs, that he could not approach the Authority for resumption of duty, the appellant has no case on merits because he was duty bound to report back even after the expiry of period for which extension was requested which he did not. We have also seen the enquiry proceedings and find that the appellant could not explain the reasons for not reporting back to the department for joining of this duties and remain aboard to earn his livelihood intentionally. " . ,

6. The conclusion as arrived at by the learned Service Tribunal being well‑based hardly calls for any interference. Besides that no question of law of public importance is involved in the matter on the C basis whereof leave could be granted. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./J‑47/SC Leave refused.