1987 PLP 403 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 16‑6‑1985 of the Central Service Tribunal; whereby petitioner's appeal against order of removal from service, was dismissed. The main charge against the petitioner was absence, from duty without sanctioned leave. The Tribunal has given the resume of facts regarding the petitioner's attempt to remain absent from duty on one or the other pretext as also the indulgence of the Department in repeatedly granting him leave but, ultimately having been fed up with his conduct the departmental action was taken. The relevant part of the impugned judgment, in this behalf, is reproduced below:‑‑ "A perusal of the record shows that the appellant was granted ex‑Pakistan leave on full pay for 120 days with effect from 16th February, 1980 vide Ministry of Information and Broadcasting No. 3(3)/67‑Admn.,, dated 7‑2‑1980. The appellant on 3‑4‑1980 submitted a petition praying that the balance of his leave be converted into extraordinary leave with effect from 1‑4‑1980 and the period of extraordinary leave may be extended for one year. Vide Ministry of Information's Memo. No. 3(3)/67‑Admn, dated 28‑5‑1980, the grant of extraordinary leave for one year with effect from 1‑4‑1980 was refused and he was directed to resume duty on expiry of 4 months' leave ex‑Pakistan on 15‑6‑1980. He, however, submitted yet another petition, dated 11‑6‑1980 stating that as he was in Saudi Arabia and wanted to perform Haj and as his leave was expiring on 15‑6‑1980, the same may be extended for 4 months on half average pay. This request was acceded to, and he was granted extension of his ex‑Pakistan leave on half average from 15‑6‑1980 vide Ministry of Information and Broadcasting O.M. No. 3(3)/67‑Admn., dated 26‑6‑1980. On expiry of this leave, he neither applied for any extension of leave nor reported for duty and was warned against disciplinary action if he failed to report within a fortnight vide Ministry of Information O.M. No. 3(3)/67‑Admn, dated 26th October, 1980. Obviously" on receipt of this warning notice the appellant sent an application for two months leave on medical grounds and once mo a the department granted him 60 days extension of leave ex‑Pakistani with effect from 13-10‑1980. On expiry of this leave the appellant, instead of reporting for duty once more applied for another extension of leave on, medical grounds on 13‑12‑1980 and once more he was granted 60 days extension of ex‑Pakistan leave with effect from 12‑12‑1980 to 9‑2‑1981 vide Ministry of Information No. 3(3)/67‑Admn, dated 2nd February, 1981. He was further informed by the Ministry vide their letter No. 3(3)%67‑Adinn, dated 4th February, 1981 that extension of leave on medical grounds up to 9th February, 1981 has been granted to him as a special case and with this extension he will have availed 360 days leave ex‑Pakistan and no further extension will be followed to him. He was, directed "to resume duty on expiry leave: ;on 10th February, 1981 positively." On expiry of the last leave a which incidentally had been obtained on medical grounds instead of resuming duty on 10th February, 1981 the appellant sent 3ret another petition, dated 15th February, 1981 in which he stjatt3d "I was expected to join my office on February 15, 1981 but could not get my seat in the plane. Now I have got my seat confirmed and Insha' Allah I am reaching on 4th March, 1981 afternoon at Rawalpindi. I may be excused for my absence from the office for these days." This solemn promise of the appellant never materialised. "On 9th March, 1981 he submitted yet another petition asking for leave without pay for the maximum period "the department could afford". Once more the department went out of its way to meet his request and he was granted 360 days extraordinary leave with effect from 5th March, 1981 vide Ministry of Information O.M. No. 3(3)/67‑Admn, dated 24th March, 1981. Having availed the leave he filed a fresh petition on 21st March, 1982 for grant of two years extraordinary leave and was informed vide Ministry of Information No. 3(3)/67‑Admn, dated 3rd April, 1982 that the competent authority has refused grant of two years extraordinary leave requested by him and he should resume his duty in the Directorate immediately. The appellant, however, did not join and continued to display dilatory tactics. He was informed on 5th June, 1982 by the Ministry vide their No. 3(3)/ 67‑Admn, that the competent authority had refused extension of his leave and that he was willfully absenting himself from duty with effect from 5‑3‑1982 and was also not paying any heed to the notice directing him to resume duty. He was directed to report for duty and explain his un-authorised absence within 10 days failing which disciplinary action would be taken against him. As he refused to join duty, he was served with a final show‑cause notice which was also published in the Pakistan Times, Rawalpindi, dated l0th December, 1982 and Nawa‑e‑Waqt, Rawalpindi, dated 11th December, 1982. As the appellant failed to report for duty in spite of the show‑cause notice and warning served on him, he was removed from service with effect from 5‑3‑1982 vide Ministry of Information No. 3(3)/67‑Admn, dated 22nd February, 1983." The contentions raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal were that he was condemned unheard; that one Muhammad Ramzan against whose promotion the petitioner had filed a departmental appeal had dealt with the leave applications of the petitioner, therefore, they were disposed of with a prejudiced mind; and lastly, that under the 1980 Revised Leave Rules a liberal attitude on question of leave, particularly ex‑Pakistan, has been visualised, the refusal of the authority to grant further extension of the leave to the petitioner was against the spirit of the Rules. The learned Members of the Tribunal have dealt with each one of the contentions. The first two contentions relate to the findings of fact which cannot be opened in these proceedings. The last contention has also been adequately dealt with in the impugned judgment. We agree with the learned Tribunal that the spirit of the Rules was not violated by the authority concerned rather the petitioner has been shown more indulgence than he deserved on account of his conduct. Finding no merit in this petition leave to appeal is refused and the same is dismissed. S.Q./4389/S Leave refused.