1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

6. The learned counsel further pleaded that soon after the appellant became fit he travelled back to Pakistan and reported for duty on 23‑1‑1995.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand resisted this appeal stating clearly that no instructions were issued to the effect that the appellant after completing his training was allowed to proceed to U.K. for visiting his ailing mother. On the contrary it was made clear vide para. 2(vi) of his sanction letter dated 11‑8‑1994, that he would not apply for ex‑Pakistan Leave on completion of his course. In spite of all that he did not abide by the condition imposed on him in the said sanction letter.

8. He had to return to Islamabad. The booking of seats from Manchester to Islamabad was not understood. Moreover, the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development was not informed about the cancellation of his flight on 16‑11‑1994 nor did he obtain permission to proceed to England. His proceeding to England, therefore, amounted to disobedience of the orders of his superiors.

9. The appellant merely spoke of the accident, however, he did not dilate on its nature. The medical certificate so produced was neither attested by the High Commission of Pakistan nor it was accompanied by the accident report from the local police. The appellant was, therefore, refused medical leave, and directed to report back for duty immediately vide telegram dated 21‑11‑1994. Subsequently, the Commission was also requested to direct the appellant to report back for duty, in Pakistan immediately. This was followed by reminder on the same day. However, he did not respond. As regards the discussion held between the appellant and the Councillor of the Bredford, Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Shah, it was not known to the Ministry. The report received about the appellant from the Commission reveals that he was hale and hearty there and could travel to Pakistan and that no such accident was reported by the local police.

10. However, the appellant reported for duty on 23‑1‑1995 in the Ministry whereas he reached Pakistan on 20‑1‑1995. The statement of his brother, indicates that the appellant was slipped on the Banna skin and fell down and hurt his back bone

11. Since no medical leave was sanctioned to the appellant and subsequently he had disobeyed the orders of his superior repeatedly to resume his duty immediately, besides had violated the condition given in his sanction letter not to seek ex‑Pakistan leave, after completion of his training, he wits, therefore, imposed minor penalty of withdrawal of two annual increments on the grounds of misconduct/disobedience after conducting the disciplinary proceedings as prescribed under the law. As such no injustice has been done to him.

12. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent‑department and have also perused the documents placed on the file. The main question before us is whether or not he was justified to stay back whether it was justified under the law. Whether the minor penalty so imposed upon him was correct in the eye of law.

13. Now coming to point No. 1, we find that it was clearly provided in his sanction letter that he will not apply for ex‑Pakistan leave. To fulfil that condition, the appellant after completing his training should have come to Pakistan to join his duties. On the contrary he proceeded unauthorisedly to U.K. on the very second day after the completion of his training. The admitted fact is that he and his family made efforts to get him visa for U.K. for which they were ultimately successful on 2‑11‑1994. This clearly shows that the appellant action to proceed U.K. was a deliberate. The statement given by his brother in the letter dated 22‑5‑1995 which mentions that the appellant arrived on 5‑11 -1994 from Holland to visit his sick mother in the U.K. tends to support to the above view. Had he no such intention then he would have made an alternative arrangement for return to Pakistan or he would have made some arrangements prior to completion of course which is normally done. We, therefore, find force in the arguments of the respondent when they say that the appellant stayed back wilfully. As such the action on the part of the appellant, amounts to misconduct.

14. As regards the medical leave under the law he should have submitted medical certificate of the Embassy doctor who is authorised to endorse such certificate. The appellant's view that authorised doctor means any M.B.,B.S. practitioner is not correct. As a matter of fact the authorised medical attendant is one who is authorised by the Government to examine the employees of the Embassy give them treatment and endorse the medical certificate after thorough check‑up. Until and unless medical certificates are not endorsed by the authorised doctor, they have no legal position in the eye of law. As such the respondent were right is not accepting medical certificate submitted by the appellant which did not bear the endorsement of the authorised medical attendant.

15. In spite of the fact the appellant was directed by the Competent Authority through a telegram to report back in the Ministry immediately. Subsequently the Commission was too requested to direct the appellant to report for duty. But the appellant did not carry out the orders of his superiors but submitted yet another application dated 4‑11‑1994 for six weeks leave. This too amounts to misconduct by the appellant.

16. We have gone through the relevant record and find no legal infirmity has been committed by the respondent‑department while conducting the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant nor the appellant or his counsel has pointed out any. Although he was given a show‑cause notice in which it was made clear that in case he would not join the duties immediately, he would be proceeded against ex parte. Even then he did not bother about this which shows again clear disobedience by the appellant.

17. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appellant has wilfully stayed back violated the condition provided in his sanction not to seek ex- Pakistan leave, and committed misconduct by not obeying the order of his superiors. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal, having no merit at all. However to meet the requirement of F.R. 29 we modify the impugned order dated 23‑2‑1995 to the extent that "minor penalty of withholding two annual increments" would be without cumulative effect.

18. No order as to costs. 19 Parties be informed H.B.T./27/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.