1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).--‑In this case the appellant a Circle Head Draftsman was charge‑sheeted on 4‑7‑1978 by the order of Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Circle, Moghalpura for remaining absent from duty without leave after 3‑5‑1977 till 31‑5‑1977. The appellant had proceeded on four months' ex‑Pakistan leave w. e. f. 3‑1‑1977, but after the expiry of the leave, he submitted an application dated 10‑5‑1977 from abroad i.e. United Arab Emirates‑U. A. E., but he was informed vide letter dated 9‑7‑1977. by the Superintending Engineer (Headquarters) Irrigation, Lahore Region, that his leave could not be granted and he was advised to join duty. The appel lant, however, submitted another application on 11‑6‑1977 with Medical Certificate for extension for another month's leave which too was rejected on 7‑8‑1977. The appellant went on submitting application dated 11‑7‑1977, 29‑8‑1977, 8‑10‑1977, 27‑10‑1977, 27‑12‑1977, 27‑2‑1978 and 22‑4‑1978 for extension in leave. The appellant replied that he proceeded on leave with permission, but he fell ill and thus for the circumstances beyond his control, he was unable to resume duty, as desired by the Department. It appears that the explanation of the appellant failed to find favour with the departmental authorities. Thus on the report of the Authorised Officer‑S. E. Mechanical Circle, Lahore, dated 14‑10‑1978, it was held that the appellant was absent from duty without leave, who had already censured the appellant‑and it was directed that his absence be reckoned as extraordinary leave without pay. But it appears that the appellant did not make any representation as regards the order of censure was concerned. However, he represented to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Central Region, Lahore, against the duration of the period he remained absent from duty. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Central Region, Lahore, on 8‑11‑1979 rejected the representation. The present appeal was filed by the appellant on 14‑11‑1979 claiming that the period in question should have been treated as leave of the kind due to the appellant. The appellant submitted that in fact be had applied the leave on medical ground and thus his absence was due to the circumstances beyond his control. The appellant also argued that once the leave was sanctioned the department had no powers to change the nature of the leave applied for by the Government servant. In this behalf reliance was placed on Note appearing below rule 8.15 of the C. S. R. (Punjab), Volume I, Part I. The appellant also placed reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal In re: Muhammad Hanif Khan v. X. E. N., Mianwali (N L R 1978 Service 160), according to which the department could not alter the nature of the leave applied for by the civil servant concerned.

2. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant was absent from duty for a period of one year and 27 days and according to the findings of the Authorised Officer, the period in question has been treated as absence without leave and he was administered a Censure which was never appealed against by the appellant. Thus so far as the treat ment of the period of absence was concerned, the finding of the Departmental Authority is conclusive and final against the appellant and in this appeal he could not be allowed to challenge the same as the Censure was administered to the appellant by the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Circle, Lahore, by a separate order. Even with regard to the treatment of the period, the appellant remained absent from duty and it was submitted that the appellant was not entitled to any medical leave beyond the period of 120 days at a stretch. Since the period exceeded admittedly beyond 120 days, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to the pay as claimed by the appellant. The learned Government Pleader further argued that in fact no leave had been sanctioned at all. In fact the period has been treated as absence without leave and the impugned order simply observed that the period may be reckoned as `leave without pay' for the purpose of regularising the service. Otherwise, there could have been break in service of the appellant and his previous service could not have counted towards pension. Thus the order to that extent was clearly to the benefit of the appellant and be could not be treated to be an aggrieved person for the treatment above. He also invited our attention to the Leave Rules published by the Government on the 5th of November 1978, rule 9 of which provided that extraordinary leave without pay may be granted to a civil servant for a maximum period of five years if he had completed 10 years service or a maximum period of two years if he had completed 5 years' service and thus the Government was competent to grant the extraordinary leave without pay. He further argued that in this case the leave of the appellant was never sanctioned and thus the decision of this Tribunal as cited by the appellant was inapplicable and similarly the note appearing below rule 8.15 of the C. S. R. (Punjab), Volume I, Part I, referred to above, was also not attracted to this case.

3. After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that the contention of the Government Pleader that the order regarding treatment of the period as absence without leave and the consequent administration of Censure to the appellant by the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Circle, has never been appealed against and the same had become final. Thus for the purpose of decision of this appeal, we have to proceed on the assumption that the appellant was, absent from duty without leave. Thus in view of above, the contention of the appellant that the leave of the appellant had been sanctioned by the department is not well supported by the facts of this case. In th light of our finding above, the ruling of this Tribunal and the Note appearing below rule 8.15 of the C. S. R. (Punjab), Volume I, Part I, also does not' appear to be applicable to this case and we hold accordingly.

4. In the result, the appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.