' Muhammad Saeed Khan, employee of the Punjab Education Department, posted as Untrained Oriental Teacher at Muslim Awami High Secondary School, Sambrial, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot has come in appeal bringing in challenge order dated 1-3-1988 whereby major penalty of removal from service with effect from 1-2-1984 and minor penalty of censure was imposed upon him by the District Education Officer (M), Sialkot, however treating him as a fresh recruit, he was directed to continue his work with effect from 1-11-1997 when he resumed duty after remaining absent wilfully from his job.
2. Appellant was inducted in service as Untrained Oriental Teacher posted at Government Muslim Awami High School, Sambrial in September, 1996. After nationalization of the school in 1972, appellant entered Government service. Appellant was granted leave from 1-2-1981 to 6-7-1981 on full pay and from 7-7-1981 to 31-1-1983 without pay under the Revised Leave Rules, 1978. Appellant proceeded abroad to Saudi Arabia for improving his educational and professional qualifications.
From Saudi Arabia, appellant sent an application for extension of his leave with effect from 1-2-1983 to 31-1-1984, which was accordingly sanctioned by District Education Officer (SE), Sialkot vide his 'order dated 25-4-1984. Yet another application for extension of leave was submitted by the appellant for the period from 1-2-1984 to 31-10-1987 which, according to the appellant, reached Respondent No,2. This period of leave i,e, 1-2-1984 to 31-10-1987 was not sanctioned and became the bone of contention between the appellant and the Department, and later on, action for wilful absence for this period was taken against the appellant, which resulted in the impugned order.
3. Stance of the appellant in the memorandum of appeal is that after completing the course at Umm-ul-Qura University, Mecca, appellant reported for duty in the office of Respondent No,2, who was allowed to resume his job at the same school i,e, Government Muslim Awami High School, Sambrial against his former post on his own pay and grade with effect from 1-11-1987 vide order dated 9-2-1988 subject to the condition that the fate of the intervening period would be decided separately in due course of time. Appellant went on to state that after a period of 14 years, he was communicated the fate of the intervening period i,e, from 1-2-1984 to 31-10-1987 against which he made departmental representation to the District Education Officer (SE), Sialkot, which was forwarded to Headmaster of the school where the appellant was serving. The Headmaster directed the appellant to produce his Service Book to enter the decision taken about the period for which the appellant remained absent. On the request of the appellant, Headmaster, provided him (appellant) copy of the order dated 1-3-1988 whereby he came to know that the period was treated as absence for which he was removed from service and was allowed to resume duty on 1- 11-1987 as fresh recruit.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order dated 1-3-1988 imposing penalties upon the appellant was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice in that no opportunity was provided to him to meet his case and that the penalty was imposed without holding a regular inquiry which was the call of the day.' It was further stated that the period between 1-2-1984 to 31- 10-1987 was wrongly treated as absence from duty, and that after treating the period as wilful absence, appellant has been deprived of the length of service affecting his seniority and pension, which has caused him irreparable loss and as such, the impugned order required reversal. Learned District Attorney on the other hand stoutly controverted the submissions by the counsel of the appellant and emphasized that the order of the authority fell within four corners of law.
5. I have heard the respective counsel at length and perused the record.
6. Admittedly no leave was sanctioned in favor of .The appellant for the period from 1-2-1984 to 31- 10-1987. This being the position, the appellant should have made himself readily available to the authority to join his job. Law envisages two eventualities under the Revised Leave Rules, 1981 where the incumbent civil servant can submit the application for leave and proceed to avail the period without waiting for approval on his application and that is when he is incapacitated by illness or whereby his close kith and kin expires. In no other case can he leave on the assumption that leave would be sanctioned in due course. The civil servant has to wait for the approval of the competent authority on his leave application and if it is not allowed he has to continue working against the post and only if it is approved, then he can proceed on leave. In the instant case, extension in leave for the period from 1 2-1984 to 31-10-1987 was not approved, therefore, the appellant had to return to his duty. Period from 1-2-1984 to 31-10-1987 was rightly treated as wilful absence from duty.
Appellant was served with a show-cause notice, dated 9-2-1988 and he was heard on 23-2-1988 by the authority about which there is no cavil. Principles of natural justice were fully complied with.
7. It is the prerogative of the authority whether to hold a regular inquiry or to continue with the disciplinary proceedings through a show-cause notice and in following the course, he is to be guided by a number of considerations, one of them being whether regular inquiry would serve any useful purpose. Where it is admitted that the appellant submitted an application for extension in leave from 1-2-1984 to 31-10-1987, further acknowledging the fact that leave was not extended, failure to resume duty would itself prove wilful absence. This was a fit case where regular inquiry was not at all needed and if resorted to, would have been an exercise in futility.
8. After hearing the appellant at length, the authority imposed penalty of removal from service as well as minor penalty of censure and the period of absence was treated as wilful. However, it is sheer good luck of the appellant, probably considering his advanced education at the prestigious University at Mecca that the authorities allowed the appellant to work against the same post in his own pay and scale afresh with effect from 1-11-1987. The.Tenure of the order dated 9-2-1988 which was well within knowledge of the appellant, was that he was allowed to resume duty provisionally with effect from 1-11-1987 in the same scale against his own post on his own pay and grade. The wording used clearly means and conveys that the appointment is a fresh one, but despite this order, appellant was given a chance through a show-cause notice and provided an opportunity to explain as to why penalty be not imposed upon him for his wilful absence. He failed to satisfy the authority for his absence by his explanation, which has also been rejected by the Tribunal in the preceding paragraph of this judgment.
9. Comments submitted by the respondents makes interesting reading. Appellant having known order dated 9-2-1988 made use of a design, probably due to machination of the Headmaster of the school where the appellant was serving with whom he was hand in glove. This order was not only marked to the Headmaster, Government Awami High School, Sambrial, but also to the appellant. However, the Headmaster of the school did not make any entry in the Service Book of the appellant deliberately so as to avoid the effect of the order dated 9-2-1988. Even otherwise the appellant had nine years service to his credit on 7-7-1981 when he proceeded. On leave to Saudi Arabia and under the Revised Leave Rules, 1981, he was not entitled for the grant of extraordinary leave without pay for more than two years at one time, having less than 10 years service to his credit. Resultantly he ceased to be a Government servant under the rules once the sanctioned leave expired. Therefore, appellant cannot pick a bone about the order treating him a fresh recruit against the same post in the 'same scale.
10. The discussion in the preceding paragraph leads the Tribunal to the result that appellant had no case on merits. Resultantly his appeal is dismissed.