Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AZIM VS Respondent: CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, SARGODHA ZONEHonorable Justice ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY
1984 P L C (C
1984 P L C (C. S.) 1073
[Service Tribunal Punjab]
Present: S. Abdul Jabbar Khan, Chairman, Malik Zawwar Hussain and Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Members
Ch. MUHAMMAD AZIM
versus
CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, SARGODHA ZONE AND ANOTHER
Case No. 473/1634 of 1981, decided on 8th August, 1982.
Civil service---
- Misconduct-Civil servant on medical leave left station without permission and sought piecemeal extensions on medical ground -Declined to appear before Medical Superintendent for second opinion nor appeared before competent Authority for personal bear ing-Absence from duty, held, wilful and behaviour for not appear ing for personal hearing tantamounting to insubordination and mis conduct.
Ch. Ghulam Qadir for Appellant. Haroon-ur-Rashid Cheema District Attorney for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 8th August, 1982.
JUDGMENT
ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Ch. Muhammad Azim, Ex- Assistant Vernacular Clerk in the Irrigation Department has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he had impleaded the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Sargodha and the Superin tending Engineer, Thai Canal Circle, Mianwali as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders of the respondent No. 2, dated 10th June, 1980 and, Respondent No. 1, dated 1st July, 1981 be set aside and the appellant be re-instated with back benefits. He has also prayed that orders as deemed fit 'regarding his seniority be also passed by the Tribunal.
3. Brief history of the ease is that Ch. Muhammad Azim, ex-Assis tant Vernacular Clerk in the Irrigation Department while employed in Kala Bagh Division, appeared before the Medical Superintendent, Mianwali with docket issued by the Executive Engineer, Kala Bagh Division for medical examination. The Medical Superintendent, Mianwali recommended him two weeks rest on 1st August, 1979. The appellant proceeded to avail the leave sanctioned from 3rd August, 1979 to 16th August, 1979. However, the appellant left the station without permission and sanction of further leave. Thereafter, the appellant remained submitting piecemeal applica tions with the medical certificates of the Medical Officer, Incharge Rural Health Centre, Badomali, District Sialkot. The medical certificates obtained later on did not mention that the official was too Fill to move from the bed. The appellant thus absented himself from duty and remained on self-granted leave upto 10th January, 1980. The Executive Engineer directed the appellant vide No. 6088/P. F., dated 3rd October, 1979: to appear before the Medical Superintendent, Sialkot for second medical opinion but he did not appear. Since the appellant was not responding to the letters issued to him, the District Magistrate, Sialkot and Superinten dent of Police, Sialkot were requested vide letter dated 4th December, 1979 to initiate proceedings against the accused official under Essential Services Act so that he could resume duty. The Superintendent of Police, Sialkot reported and attached the statement from Muhammad Sadiq, Proprietor, Sufi Cloth House, Badomali, District Sialkot that the appellant had come to his home but later on left with his family for Multan. A show-cause notice for wilful absence from duty was issued to the Appellant. The explanation was submitted by the appellant. The appellant in the mean while also resumed duty. The reply to the show-cause notice was not found satisfactory. The appellant was also directed to appear for personal hearing before the Superintending Engineer, Thal Circle, Mianwali but he declined to appear for personal hearing on vague grounds. The appellant was found guilty of wilful absence and his services were terminated with effect from 11th June, 1980, afternoon. He made an appeal to respondent No. 1 which was also rejected. Hence this appeal.
4. It was argued by the learned counsel of the appellant that the show-cause notice is defective as no specific penalty has been proposed in the show-cause notice. Moreover, there was no bar for sending appli cations in piecemeal for extension of leave on medical grounds under the rules. The appellant was sick, confined to bed, was unable to move and hence the medical certificates submitted by the appellant issued by the Medical Officer, Rural Health Centre, Badomali, District Sialkot should have been accepted. There was no- necessity of getting the medical certifi cates countersigned from the Medical Superintendent, Sialkot. According to rules, these medical certificates should have been accepted and leave sanctioned by the competent authority. Thus, the appellant was punished unnecessarily and unlawfully. This punishment was also mala fide because many juniors of the appellant were promoted as Vernacular Clerks while the appellant was superseded illegally but when he preferred an appeal to the Chief Engineer, the authority was annoyed and victimized him. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has long service and punishment given to him is also harsh. He concluded that charge of wilful absence against the appellant was false and his leave on medical grounds should have been allowed by the Department. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney controverted these arguments by submitting that this is clear cut case of wilful absence and misconduct and nowhere promotion/ seniority dispute is involved in this matter. The appellant was given medical leave on the recommendations of the Medical Superintendent, Mianwali; but later on he slipped away to Badomali, District Sialkot, at his own accord, without-sanction of leave and kept on sending the medical certificates in piecemeal. He was asked to appear before the Medical Superintendent, Sialkot for second opinion but he did not comply with the same. Thus, it is proved beyond any doubts that he wilfully absented himself front duty and the punishment so awarded is in accordance with the rules and is lawful.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments put forward by the appellant's counsel, learned District Attorney and have also carefully perused record concerning this case. We agree with the learned District Attorney that he absented himself from duty without sanction of the leave. Leave in the first instance from 3rd August, 1979 to 16th August, 1979 was sanctioned on the recommendations of the Medical Superinten dent, Mianwali, thus he should not have left his headquarter without further recommendations of the said Medical Superintendent and after getting sanction of the leave but he chose to slip away, to Badomali, District Sialkot and then he kept on asking for sanction of leave by sending medical certificates given by the Medical Officer, Rural Health Centre, Badomali (Sialkot). The appellant was directed by the Executive Engineer, Kala Bagh Divibion to appear before the Medical Superintendent, Sialkot for second medical opinion according to leave Rules but he did not comply with the same. The District Magistrate, Slalkot and Superintendent of Police, Sialkot were requested to initiate proceedings against the appellant under the Essential Services Act so that he could resume duty forthwith. On enquiry by the Superintendent of Police, Sialkot it was found that the appellant was 'not present on his home, Badomali, and had gone to Multan with his family. This has made his illness as doubtful, Further more, if he could go to Multan; he could also come to Sialkot for getting him medically examined from the Medical Superintendent, Sialkot, as directed. As regarding his refusal for non-receipt of Executive Engineer, Kala Bagh's letter regarding appearing before the Medical Superintendent, Sialkot, an affidavit was filed by Mr. Muhammad Bashir Ahmad, Head Clerk, which reads as under:-
"I hereby solemnly state that although X. E. N. Kala Bagh Division No. 6088/6-E, dated 3rd October, 1979 addressed to Mr. Muhammad Azim, A. V. C. for his medical check up, was posted to him at his given address in ordinary dak, yet the said letter was received by him and it was with the A. V. C. which I saw when the A. V. C. happened to be in my office on 27th April, 1980."
Thus, it is proved that he was in receipt of the said letter. He wilfully refused to acknowledge this letter and also did not appear before the Medical Superintendent, Sialkot intentionally for the reasons best known to him. He was also given a chance to appear before the Superintending Engineer, Thal Circle, Mianwali,' for personal hearing before deciding his wilful absence case ; but he refused to do so by stating that in such a medical case it was not necessary for the authority to frame such a case or to ask him for personal hearing. His behaviour for not appearing for personal hearing also tantamounts to insubordination and misconduct. Keeping the above-detailed discussions in view, the charge of wilful absence from duty stands proved and the impugned orders have been validly passed. We have also perused the show-cause notice, which is perfectly in order.
6. Keeping the above facts in view, we hold that there is no merit in his appeal which is dismissed as such.
There will be no order as to costs.
M. I. Appeal dismissed.