' JAVED IQBAL, J---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11-6- 2002 passed by learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and order of compulsory retirement from service dated 15-8-2001 has been kept intact.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that the disciplinary proceeding were initiated against the petitioner on account of inefficiency and misconduct which resulted in compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service. After exhausting the departmental remedies the petitioner approached the Punjab Service Tribunal by way of appeal which has been dismissed, hence this petition.
3. It is mainly contended by Mr. S.M'. Zubair, learned Advocate Supreme. Court on behalf of petitioner that the second show-cause notice being baseless was issued on the false premises that the petitioner remained absent which was treated as willful absence and the illness of the petitioner duly supported by medical certificate was not taken into consideration. It is next contended that the provisions of rule 20(2) of Revised Leave Rules, 1980 were not taken into consideration which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is argued that the learned Punjab Service Tribunal has erred while holding that the petitioner was required to get docket from the Competent Authority for having medical treatment as it was not a legal requirement and thus no action on this score could have been taken against the petitioner. It is urged with vehemence that the penalty of compulsory retirement could not have been kept intact by the learned Service Tribunal as the allegations levelled in show-cause notice dated 15-8-2001 were not upheld by the learned Service Tribunal. It is also contended that the prescribed procedure as envisaged in the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 were not followed in letter and spirit which aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Service Tribunal. It is further contended that the penalty of compulsory retirement could not have been imposed as the absence was neither wilful nor deliberate but on account of serious ailment and it was beyond the physical competency of the petitioner to join his duties.
4. Mr. Sohail Dar, learned Assistant Advocate General Punjab has appeared for respondent and supported the judgment impugned by reiterating the reasons contained therein.
5. The pivotal questions which needs determination are as follows:-- ' Whether the petitioner had remained absent for 79 days on different occasions?
(ii) Whether a regular inquiry should have been held to establish the factum of absence?
' We have adverted to the first question first. After having gone through the entire record we are of the view that the petitioner remained absent for 79 days. It is not the case of petitioner that he remained present and performed his duties for 79 days but his stance is that proper leave applications duly supported by medical certificate were sent to the department which should have been accepted or in the alternative he could have been referred to the Medical Board for having the second opinion. Here at this juncture the question would arise as to whether the nature of his ailment was so grave which had prevented him to perform his duties? The answer would be in negative for the reason that the petitioner has failed to substantiate his serious illness by producing worthy of credence evidence. He remained an out-door-patient just for a couple of days and nothing more on the basis whereof absence of 79 days could be justified. As mentioned herein above the petitioner has established that he remained out-door-patient for a couple of days which could not stop him from adopting proper procedure. The petitioner could have submitted a proper leave application to the Competent Authority which has not been done for the reasons best known to the petitioner which, in our opinion, are inexplicable. There is no denial of fact that the petitioner remained absent for 79 days without making any application as, according to the department, no application was ever received and there is no reason to disbelieve their version. Even otherwise we are not supposed to make an inquiry as to whether application was moved by the petitioner or otherwise? This aspect of the mater has been dilated upon and decided in a comprehensive manner in the judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-- "6. The counsel for appellant contends that he was present at Police Constabulary Headquarter on 8-6-2001 and 8-8-2001 but was mistakely shown absent from duty because he had no room for his office. This explanation is obviously not acceptable. In case he had been marked/noted absent for these two days because of some misunderstanding he should have clarified it at the proper time.
He has not come up with any explanation regarding his absence for 4 days i,e, 25-8-2000 to 28-8- 2000. He has filed copies of two leave applications dated 13-1-2001 and 9-5-2001 claiming that he had enclosed medical certificate for three weeks complete rest with the first application and two medical certificates for one month's rest from 9-4-2000 and for 3 week rest from 8-5-2001 with the second application. These applications do not bear any number of the Department to confirm that they had actually been filed in the office of Battalion Commandant. Departmental authorities have categorically denied having received these applications and there is no reason to disbelieve them.
7. The second leave application dated 9-5-2000 shows that one medical certificate advising rest for one month from 9-4-2001 was purportedly enclosed with it. It is not understandable as to why the medical certificate issued on 9-4-2001 was file on 9-5-2001 when the period of rest had already expired and the departmental authorities were left with no option to get it reexamined by a medical board. It is also significant that these medical certificates have not been countersigned by Medical Superintendent of the hospital. The medical certificates also do not bear the signature of the appellant. These certificates are actually out-door patient tickets. It means that the appellant had been visiting the hospital as out-door patient. In this view of the matter he owes an explanation as to why he did not adopt the proper procedure of getting a docket issued from the departmental authority to the relevant medical attendant. If he could visit the hospital, he could also approach the competent authority for issuing him a docket for medical treatment. Viewed in this background I hold that the appellant's absence from duty for a long period of 79 days stands fully established against him.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that even genuineness and authenticity of medical certificates is not above board as the same were not got signed by the concerned Medical Superintendent and allegedly sent to the department after one month when the period of rest was over and the petitioner could not have been referred for having opinion from the Medical Board. In the said scenario how the Medical Board could have been constituted. There is no cavil with the proposition that regular inquiry could have been dispensed with and it is not mandatory that regular inquiry must be held in each and every case. The petitioner remained absent and factum of absence has been proved on the basis of official record. In the absence of any factual controversy holding of regular inquiry has rightly been dispensed with and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.
In this regard reference can be made to the dictum laid down in case titled Muhammad Saleem Akhtar v. Director Food (1987 SCM R 829). The learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner could not furnish any plausible justification that as to why the petitioner had not approached the concerned authorities in time to get leave sanctioned on medical grounds by following the prescribed procedure and informing the authorities concerned about his ailment. We may mention here that there is no "automatic process" to get the leave sanctioned but the procedure as contemplated in the Revised Leave Rules, 1980 must be followed to get the leave sanctioned otherwise the leave availed without getting it sanctioned would be equated to that of willful absence amounting to misconduct. In peculiar circumstances of the case the Revised Leave Rules, 1980 does not render any assistance to the case of petitioner.
7. In sequel to above mentioned discussion the conclusion as arrived at by the learned Service Tribunal being free from any legal infirmity or ambiguity does not warrant interfere? The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave refused.