' MOAZZAM HAYAT, MEMBER.---Appellant Zafar Rehman is aggrieved by an order dated 16.8-2003 by which his services were terminated. No action was taken on his departmental appeal dated 4-9- 2003. It is prayed by him that the impugned order of termination be set aside and he be reinstated into service with back-benefits.
2. The appellant' was appointed against the post of Survey Helper. His this appointment was made since he was player of Basket Ball. It appears from the record that a request was made by him for payment of his salary. His request was declined vide impugned order dated 16-8-2003. Through the same order he was informed that since he had remained absent from duty for more than five years. Therefore, he was no more in WAPDA's service. It is maintained by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the appellant had played some Basket Ball matches during the alleged period of his absence it could not be held by the respondents that he had remained absent from duty.
3. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that since the appellant had remained absent from duty for more than five years, therefore, the impugned order was passed strictly in accordance with the service rules.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. The appellant has not placed any documentary evidence to show that during the alleged period of his absence from duty he had played any Basket Ball match, Only a generalized statement has been made by his learned counsel that during this period he had played some matches. On this vague assertion made by the appellant we are not prepared to believe that he had remained present on duty duping the said period by playing some matches.
6. The appellant had been appointed as Survey Helper. It is conceded on his behalf that he had never performed the duty of Survey Helper during the period he was found to be absent from duty.
As such the respondents were legally justified to pass the impugned order on account of his wilful absence from duty. A civil servant who remain absent from duty, without any permission, ceases to be a Civil Servant by the operation of FR-18 and CSR-198. In PLD 1990 SC 666 it is held that "Fundamental Rule 18 is not ultra vices of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, it is continued as a statutory rule on the strength of section 22 of Civil Servant Act and no procedural requirement exists for giving effect to it. Remedy lies in approaching the designated authority and not challenging the legal effect of the rule itself " The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in 2001 SCJ 130. In the light of law laid down by the Apex Court we hold that the respondents had passed a legal and valid order by which they had refused to treat the appellant to be their employee, entitled to salary.
7. For the above reasons we find no merit in the. Appeal which is dismissed in limine.
8. No order as to costs. Parties be informed.