1983 PLP 276 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑Khurshid Alam, formerly a Police Constable, seeks to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 28‑2‑1982 whereby his appeal was held to be time‑barred and failed on merits. The petitioner proceeded on one week's leave with the permission of the‑competent authority on 15‑5‑1979. When he applied for extension of leave he was referred to Medical Superintendent, Mianwali. This Medical Superin tendent reported him to be fit for duty but instead of reporting for duty he again absented himself. An inquiry into his conduct was held ex parte and he was dismissed on 15‑9‑1979. He claims to have reported for duty on 4‑1‑1980 and then coming to know of his dismissal order be appealed to the‑ D. I. G. on 25‑2‑1980.While that appeal was pending he filed another appeal in the Tribunal on 9‑4-1981. The Tribunal noted that the dismissal order having been passed on 15‑9‑1979, he could have filed appeal after preferring an appeal to the D.I.‑G. within ninety days, in all 120 days being available to him. He not only delayed the appeal to the D. I.‑G. but filed the appeal about 14 months thereafter. As against the dismissal order his appeal before the Tribunal was time‑barred. The learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to save it by reference to the appeal order of the D. I. G. which, according to him, was passed ,on 4‑6‑1981 when the appeal was already pending before the Tribunal. This on does not enlarge the period of limitation with regard to the first final order against which he had come up in appeal. Be that as it may, we find that on merits the Tribunal has found that for .the first absence from duty without permission he was punished with forfeiture of two years approved service on 3‑6‑1979. Against that decision he has sought no remedy. The unauthorized absence from duty was prolonged beyond the period for which this punishment was inflicted. The defence of the petitioner throughout has been that be had been receiving treatment from Dr. Shabbir of Nishter Hospital. His certificate with regard to the nature of illness and the period required for treatment should have prevailed over that of the Medical Superintendent or of anyone else. The competent authority has power to refer an officer seeking leave on medical grounds to the Medical Superintendent and his opinion ordinarily is to be accepted unless either of the parties wants to challenge it in which case a Medical Board is to be constituted for giving the final opinion. The fitness certificate of the Medical Superintendent was not disputed at the appropriate stage by the petitioner and be should have reported for duty after having certified fit. He cannot choose doctors of his own liking for putting in applications for leave on medical grounds. We find that the petition raises no such question of law of public importance as may justify grant of leave under. Article 212(3) of the Constitu tion. Leave to appeal is therefore refused. Petition dismissed.