1984 PLP (C (PLC)

MIAN FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER).‑Appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the respondents as mentioned above.

2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the dismissal order dated 9th December, 1982 may be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service with all back benefits of pay and allowances.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was transferred from the post of Registration Clerk, D. G. Khan and posted as Leave Reserve Clerk in English Record Room, Deputy Commissioner's Office vide order dated 12th December, 1981. He did not comply with the order and instead absented from duty w. e. f. 17th December, 1983. He was charge sheeted and later on placed under suspension. Finding the explanation as unsatisafactory the appellant was issued a show‑cause notice under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. On receipt of his reply to a show‑cause notice he was summoned for personal hearing but did not appear due to his illness. Due to wilful absence from duty the appellant was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed appeal before respondent No. 1 but the same was rejected. Hence this appeal.

4. The appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that he was indisposed and submitted an application on 17th December, 1981 suppor ted by a medical certificate requesting leave for 15 days as well as station leave for proceeding to Chunian (his home place) having better facilities of treatment. ' Subsequently he submitted medical certificate from Medical Officer Chunian. However, instead of sanctioning the leave the appellant was charge‑sheeted. The plea of the appellant was that medical leave could not be refused. The appellant further added that he was asked to appear before authorized Medical Officer i. e. Medical Superintendent, D. G. Khan instead of Kasul. He was also asked to get the certificate countersigned by Medical Superintendent, D. G. Khan. The appellant concluded that he was declared fit on 21st January, 1983 by Senior Medical Officer, Tehsil Hqrs. Hospital Chunian and the appellant requested the respondent No. 2 for the payment of his outstanding salary.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney on behalf of respondents. We have also perused the relevant record.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant repeated the grounds cited in para. 4 above. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal on the grounds that the appellant as it is clear from the comments of the Deputy Commissioner, D. G. Khan was unwilling to join the new assign ment. After being transferred from the post of Registration Clerk ‑fie absented from duty. The leave was recommended from 19th December, 1981 to 3rd January, 1982 by the Medical Practitioner, D. G. Khan but the leave for 17th December, 1981 to 18th December, 1981 was not recom mended. The appellant should have sought proper sanction of his leave but instead of awaiting sanction of competent authority for grant of leave proceeded on leave in anticipation of sanction. The appellant did not appear before the Medical Superintendent for second medical test and therefore, he was placed under suspension and then after proceeding under rule 6 (3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 was ultimately dismissed. He added that during the entire period of illness he was never confined to bed nor he was ever admitted as an indoor patient. It seems his alleged illness was not so serious as to declare him not fit for journey. He further submitted that during his alleged illness if he could perform the journey from D. G. Khan to Chunian, he could also undertake the journey from Chunian to D. G. Khan for second medical test.

7. Keeping the above facts in view we feel that the points raised by the learned District Attorney are convincing one. Regardless to the fact that the Medical Officer recommended the rest but obviously the fact remains that the appellant should not have left the station without prior sanction of the station leave from the competent authority particularly when he was previously .communicated in writing. If he wanted to take rest as an outdoor patient he should have taken the rest at D. G. Khan.

8. Hence there is no force in the appeal which is accordingly dis missed. As regards the. punishment awarded to the appellant we feel that it is a little harsh, no matter absence from duty is a serious misconduct attracting major penalty. Accordingly the appellant has to be treated a removed from service instead of dismissal. There will be no order as to costs. M. I. Appeal dismissed.