983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑Muhammad Arshad Butt, ex-Junior Clerk, Government Printing Press, Lahore has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Controller, Printing and Stationery, Government of the Punjab and Superintendent, Government Printing Press, Lahore as respon dents. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 26‑3‑1979 and 22‑9‑1980 be set aside and he may be re‑instated in service. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant absented himself from duty from 1‑i1‑1977 to 24‑6‑1978 and it was found that said absence was without permission. The appellant was served with show‑cause notice dated 13‑5‑1978 under registered post cover No. 117 to explain his absence from duty from 1‑11‑1977 to 24‑6‑1978. No reply was received but instead on 20‑7‑1978 the appellant appeared in the office and submitted application for resumption of duty, The respondent did not allow him to resume duty as according to the respondent he was absent without permission and was liable for proceeding under E & D Rules. The appellant submitted his reply to the notice on 21‑8‑1978 but did not persue the same and again absented himself. Another show‑cause notice dated 22‑10‑1980 was issued against him under registered postal cover wherein he was asked to offer is written defence within 10 days of the date of the issue of the said notice or appear in person. The appellant neither submitted the written defence nor appeared to person. Finally a notice was issued in the Daily Nawa‑i-Waqat and Sadaqat dated 27‑1‑1977 directing him to appear to defend' himself as there was no response from the appellant. The impugned order of dismissal passed on appeal was also rejected. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record carefully. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it was incorrect that the appellant has wilfully absented himself as he has filed leave application which remained unattended. The learned counsel also challenged the enquiry under the (E. & D.) Rules as one‑sided without giving any chance to the appellant to defend himself. He has based his case on the golden principle of audi alteram partem. 5. We have given our anxious thought to the argument so advanced by both the parties and find that the appellant had remained absent from duty about 7 months without any leave application submitted by him. The record of the case does not reveal as urged by the appellant that he filed an application for the period 1‑11‑1977 to 1‑12‑1978 .and 2‑3‑1978 to 24‑6‑1978, as the same are not available from the record. We fail to understand why the appellant vanished from the scene, after filing his explanation. It is also on the record that notices were issued in two dailies' in the Press with wide circulation, to the appellant who was already in know of the facts that proceeding had been initiated against him. He again remained absent and did not report and appear before the respon dent. 5. If we would have found that the appellant was proceeded against under the (E. & D.) Rules and was not associated with such proceeding we would have definitely given the advantage of golden principle of audi alteram partem to him but what we find is the converse, where the appellant himself chose to keep away after filing the explanation. 6. In view of above we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the proceeding so taken against the appellant by the respondents and up hold the same. The result is the appeal is dismissed as the appeal is without any merits. Appeal dismissed