1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD ISMAIL (MEMBER).‑‑‑The appellant, Zarghun Shah, aggrieved by the order dated 5‑4‑1994 whereby his request for reinstatement as rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was serving as Civilian Labour Class (IV) when he was involved in a murder case vide F.I.R. 192, Gated 3‑5‑1990. Thereafter he remained absconded show‑cause notices were accordingly issued on 15‑5‑1990, 21‑5‑1990 and 2‑6‑1990 respectively but neither the appellant reported for duty nor he replied to any one of them. The appellant was, however, arrested on 17‑4‑1993 and was admitted to the Central 'ail, Peshawar, on, 19‑4‑1993. On 6‑6‑1993 he was released on bail. Subsequently when to matter came up before the Sessions Judge, Peshawar. the appellant was acquitted on 5‑12‑1993 on account of a compromise effected between the parties. After that, the appellant requested the Officer Commanding or re‑instatement but no action appears to have been taken on his application dated 8‑12‑1993. On 9‑1‑1994 the appellant, submitted a representation which was rejected oft 5‑4‑1994. He then filed the present appeal before this Tribunal 'under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, on 30‑4‑1994.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that on the charge of committing a murder an F.I.R. was lodged against the appellant on 3‑5‑1990 and he sent an application for one month's leave on 5‑5'‑1990 but the respondents, without considering his request for leave, had unfairly' passed the order of his discharge on the same day without issuing a show‑cause notice. The learned counsel maintained that even after the 'acquittal, the appellant reported for duty on 8‑12‑1993 but he was not taken in service, which was also illegal. It was contended that neither any personal hearing was afforded to the appellant nor any enquiry was conducted against him and as such the respondents acted unjustifiably in refusing to take him' back in service. On the basis of these assertions the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order and requested for reinstatement of the appellant in service with all consequential benefits.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant who absented himself from duty with effect from 5‑5‑1990, was arrested on 17‑4‑1993 and remained under the custody till 6‑6‑1993. The appellant did not submit any application for leave to the Commanding Officer, C.M.H., nor he gave any explanation even after his release on bail with effect from 7‑6‑1993. He has, however, categorically repelled the appellant's assertions that he had submitted his application for leave on 5‑5‑1990 through a friend. He alleged that three notices were respectively issued to the appellant but he did not reply to any of them deliberately and remained absent unauthorisedly. He asserted that the appellant has rightly been penalized by the respondents.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. It appears from the record that the appellant had remained absent from duty with effect from 5‑5‑1990 but, in spite of notices, he did not bother to submit any application for leave nor he tendered any explanation therefor. If the appellant's submission that he had submitted an application for one month's leave on 5‑5‑1990 is admitted even then he has no case because he was arrested on 17‑4‑1993 and was released on bail on 6‑6‑1993. He has failed to show any request for extensions of his leave after 5‑6‑1990. The appellant's contentions that no inquiry was conducted in his case and he was penalized without affording any opportunity are also of no avail to him as it is an admitted fact that, after committing murder, he had remained absent from 5‑5‑1990. This Tribunal has observed in several cases that a 'detailed enquiry is not necessary where the charge stands proved/established and a Government servant cannot insist that disciplinary proceedings should be initiated in a particular manner. The appellant's acquittal was effected through a compromise and he had never been confronted with any trial. Therefore, if he desired, he could have informed the department about his tragedy. In our view, the appellant had remained under custody for a short period, whereas he mainly remained absent from duty un-authorizedly and, therefore, the respondents were justified in taking action against. him. The respondents have also alleged that earlier too the appellant was habitual of remaining absent without any permission for leave. The appellant was, therefore, rightly held guilty of the charge and was justifiably punished. The cases relied upon by, the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable, and therefore, no credence is placed on them In the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to. H.B.T/36/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.