1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.

This appeal through leave of this Court is directed against the judgment and order dated 17-8-1993 whereby an appeal preferred by the appellant against his removal from service was rejected.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the institution of this appeal are that the appellant while working as a Junior Clerk in the office of the District Blood Unit of Aziz Bhatti Shaheed Hospital, Gujrat, was proceeded against under Rule 6.3 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 on the following charge:-- "You were allowed nine days casual leave with effect from 21-2-1990 to 1-3-1990 as a special case by the Blood Transfusion Officer, Gujrat on the alleged ground of sickness of your sister and thereafter you have been absent without leave." On the conclusion of the proceedings vide order dated 22-8-1990 the appellant was removed from service with effect from 10-3-1990. An appeal taken by the appellant calling in question his removal from service was also dismissed by the Director, Institute of Blood Transfusion Service, Punjab. The said order has been assailed through this appeal.

3. It may be stated here that prior to the present proceedings the appellant had also been proceeded under the (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules for remaining absence from duty and for non-compliance of the orders transferring him to Faisalabad. As a result of those proceedings the appellant was dismissed from service vide order dated 18-3-1987, but was reinstated by the Punjab Service Tribunal and the penalty of dismissal was converted into stoppage of three increments vide judgment dated 6-1-1990. After reinstatement the appellant was posted at the District Blood Unit of Aziz Bhatti Shaheed Hospital, Gujrat where he reported for duty on 17-2-1990 and immediately he proceeded on casual leave for 9 days on the ground that his sister had fallen sick at Lahore. On the expiry of the said leave he applied for further leave on the ground of his own sickness. This application was accompanied by a medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer of the Services Hospital, Lahore, who had advised him rest for 9 days. Thereafter, the appellant consulted a number of private medical practitioners for treatment and during this period kept on sending applications for extension in leave. However, admittedly the appellant did not bother to ascertain the fate of such applications. In these circumstances, the appellant was proceeded against and he received notice dated 23-5-1990 issued by the Authorised Officer to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for remaining absence from duty. Vide said notice the appellant was also directed to either report for duty immediately or to appear before the Medical Superintendent, Aziz Bhatti Shaheed Hospital, Gujrat. Before the Service Tribunal, the appellant's stand was that he had not received any letter directing him to appear before the Medical Superintendent or to report for duty. In this behalf, before the Service Tribunal the appellant relied upon a certificate issued by the Chief Postmaster-General, Lahore Cantonment to the effect that the said registered letter was returned to the sender with the remarks that the addressee was not at home. It was contended before us that the order dispensing with the holding of regular inquiry was not justified and the circumstances of the case warranted a regular inquiry. It was also contended that the appellant's application accompanied by medical certificates issued by the private medical practitioners should have been accepted and the refusal to grant him further leave and his removal from service were uncalled for.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Registered letters were sent to the appellant on his known address and the postman not only once but for a number of time tried to deliver the letter, but each time it was not received. We have also noticed that a regular inquiry was dispensed by the Authorised Officer under rule 6.3 of the (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules on valid grounds because a good deal of evidence in support of the charge was otherwise available on the record. We have also noticed that final opportunity was given to the appellant to show cause, but it was not availed by him. We have no hesitation to observe that the proceedings against the appellant were conducted strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. Furthermore, final show-cause notice was also sent to the appellant containing the recommendation in respect of the proposed penalty and the grounds of penalty were also mentioned. Under the revised Leave Rules of 1981 the competent Authority was not precluded to have second medical opinion with regard to the ailment of an employee from a Civil Surgeon or a Medical Board as the case may be after examining such employee. In the case of the appellant the Authority had decided to have second opinion. In this behalf as already observed, number of attempts were made by the postman, but each time the postman was informed that the appellant was not available. In this period, admittedly, he was working in Lahore and, therefore in our view, it was rightly held by the Service Tribunal that there was no bar in the way of the appellant to ascertain the fate of his application seeking further leave. Out of 7 applications moved by the applicant for the extension of leave, 6 were accompanied by certificates from private medical practitioners. The contention for holding a regular inquiry in the light of facts and circumstances of this case was totally unwarranted. The Department does not deny receipt of applications seeking extension in leave, but the conduct of the appellant shows that he has been refusing to receive letters sent to him by the Department and he himself also did not bother to ascertain the fate of such applications. The plea of mala fides raised by the appellant is also baseless as no cogent evidence was produced by the appellant before the Service Tribunal to substantiate the same. Furthermore, no question of public importance is involved. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. M. B. A./M-169/S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.