1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(c) Civil service‑ ‑‑ Leave‑On medical grounds‑Home address not indicated on leave applications‑Adverse notice taken for such omission. M. A. Riaz for Appellant. H. F. Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent. SH. HAFEEZUR REHMAN (MEMBER).‑‑‑In this case the appellant is Riaz Ahmed Cheema who impugnes the order dated 11th February, 1978 issued by the S. P., Gujranwala, dismissing the appellant from service for misconduct and seeks to get it set aside. Also impugned are orders dated 29th February 1978 made by the D. I. G. Police, Gujranwala Range, and order dated 28th September, 1978 of the I. G. of Police, turning down his appeals against the first Order.

2. Brief facts of the case are that while serving as A. S. I. in the C. I. A., Gujranwala, the appellant applied for four months' leave to look after his domestic affairs and to obtain treatment for his heart trouble. He was granted one month's leave by the S. P. from 1st July, 1977 td 31st July, 19/7 which was due to him. According to the leave granted to him, the appellant was due back on 1st hbhg0August, 1977 but on 31st July, 1977 he put in another application requesting leave on medical grounds from 31st July, 1977 to 29th August, 1977 i. e. for the month of August, 1977. This application was accompanied by a certificate issued by the Medical Officer. Police Hospital, Qurban Lines, Lahore. On 18th September, 1977 the S. P. wrote him a letter at his home address asking him to appear in the Orderly Room as well as before the Medical Superintendent, District Headquarter Hospital, Gujranwala, otherwise his medical leave granted by the Medical Officer, Police Hospital, Qurban Lines, Lahore, would not be accepted. His pay was also stopped. After that the appellant sent in successive medical certificates about heart ailment for another five months i.e. September, October, November and December, 1977 and January, 1978. 1n the meantime the S. P. who had rejected the M. C. for September and October, 1977 initiated disciplinary action against the appellant. A show‑cause notice was issued on 23rd October, 1977 which could not be served as the appellant could not be located at his resi dence in Model Town, Gujranwala. Another show‑cause notice dated 19th January, 1978 was issued by registered post to his Lahore address but came back undelivered. Consequently proceedings under the Police E & D Rules were taken resulting in the impugned order of 11th February, 1978.

3. The parties were heard and the record of the case, which had been summoned from Gujranwala, examined. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no reason for the S. P. to reject the M. C. for the month of October, 1977 considering that the certificate was issued by a doctor in the Police Hospital in Lahore who had diagnosed his ailment as Myocardial Ischemia, i.e. serious heart trouble, nor was there any occasion for the S. P. to disbelieve and ignore later M. Cs. originating from the Civil Hospital, Wazirabad which described him as a patient of heart disease. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that a departmental authority cannot and should not substitute its opinion for that of a medical authority in the case of a medical opinion. The case of Mubarik Ahmad A. S. I. was cited whose Appeal No. 54 of 1980 had been accepted by this Tribunal on the ground that it is for the medical expert to determine the nature and gravity of the ailment suffered by the civil servant concerned. Nazir Ahmad Shah v. D. C., Multan (1980 P L C (C. S.) 228) was also cited to show that medical certificates could not be turned down arbitrarily and without advancing cogent reasons for disbelieving the evidence of the medical expert. On behalf of the Respondents the Government Pleader controverted the appellant's stand vehemently, stating that the continued absence of the appellant from his place of duty for five months could not be condoned on the strength of medical certificates most of which were unaccompanied by leave applications. We have considered the submissions of the parties carefully. We find strength from the case of Mubarik Ahmad A. S. I. v. S. P., Jhelum to hold (a) that the S. P., Gujranwala had no cause to disbelieve and reject any M. C. furnished by the appellant particularly when all of them were issued by Government Doctors and the S. P.'s office made no attempt to check their genuineness, and (b) that where a patently genuine M. C. is being submitted the absence of an accompanying leave application can be overlooked. However, we feel that the appellant had been remiss in not appearing before the M. S. District Headquarter Hospital, Gujranwala, as directed by the S. P. in his letter dated 18th September, 1977 when he found it possible to move from Lahore to Wazirabad from the Civil Hospital of which city he submitted three M. C's. So we find no fault with the conduct of the appellant in so far as his submission of proper medical certificates is concerned. However, we do look askance at his conduct in never mentioning his address on any of the leave applications and M. C.'s submitted by him and consider it as a display of irresponsibility not becoming of a Police Officer. He can well plead that he did not receive the S. P.'s letter of 18th September, 1977 directing him to report in the Orderly Room and before the M. S. District Head quarter Hospital, Gujranwala, but how could the letter reach him when he left no address nor mentioned one on any of his communications to the S. P? We are also not happy at the delay in filing this appeal. The appellant applied for and received the same day i.e. on 14th December, 1980 the Copy of the I. G. Police final order dated 28th September, 1978. We find that this order had reached the S. P., Gujranwala office in October, 1978, but the appellant applied for a copy more than two years later. There is no explanation for this lack of diligence on the part of the appellant and we cannot but take adverse notice of it. In view of the above discussion and our observations in respect of the submission of Medical leave certificates the appellant, we set aside the impugned order of the February. 1978 and those of 29th February, 1978 and 30th September 1978 and order the appellant's re‑instatement with effect from the date of the order of his dismissal from service. The period from 1st August 1977 to 11th February, 1978 will be treated an on leave of the kind due, while from 11th February, 1978 the appellant will be considered to be on duty. However for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 4 we direct that the appellant will not be paid anything for this period i.e. from 11th February, 1978 to the date he reports for duty by way of salary, allowances, etc.

6. The result is that the appeal is accepted with the proviso men tioned in the preceding paragraph. ' There will be no orders as to the costs. Appeal accepted.