' SYED BILAL AHMED (MEMBER).--- This appeal filed on 23-7-2004 assails the impugned order, dated 20-1-2004 through which major penalty of dismissal from service under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 was imposed on the appellant.
2. Brief facts of the case as given in the memo. Of appeal are that the appellant was posted to the Pakistan High Commission, London in November, 1996. He was relieved of his duties in the High Commission at London w,e,f, 31-12-2002 with the direction to report for duty in the Ministry at Islamabad after availing of usual joining time, actual time in transit and leave-cum-transfer sanctioned by the Ministry, vide order, dated 9-1-2003. He applied for leave extraordinary for five years "due to some personal and unavoidable circumstances" starting from 20-1-2003 vide application dated 2-1-2003. The leave was refused by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs due to acute shortage of Assistants at Headquarters. The appellant was also directed to report for duty at Headquarters immediately failing which disciplinary action will be initiated against him. The appellant sought retirement from service instead of joining headquarters at Islamabad. The request for retirement was not accepted and the appellant was directed to join duty at Headquarters by 17-2-2003 positively, failing which strict disciplinary action will be initiated against him. Thereafter, show-cause notice, dated 29-11-2003 was served on the appellant on ground of unauthorized absence. He was dismissed from service under RSO-2000 and the period of absence from duty from 1-1-2003 was treated as leave without pay vide order, dated 20-1-2004.
3. The impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the appellant has been discriminated and leave which was his right was refused. His request for voluntary retirement was also denied.
4. The case of the respondent is that the appellant absented himself from duty without lawful authority. He was directed to join duty at the headquarters immediately but he did not comply with the instructions. Discrimination against the appellant was denied. It was stated that an employee is not entitled to get leave as a right. The appellant was afforded adequate time to report for duty at the Headquarters but he did not do so. It was stated that the appellant had no intention to come back to Pakistan. He was trying to prolong stay in London just to get British citizenship. He submitted application dated 18-2-2004 requesting for withdrawal of dismissal orders. The same was not covered under the rules. His application was treated as an appeal to the Foreign Secretary and decision of the Foreign Secretary regarding rejection of the appeal was conveyed to him through Pakistan High Commission, London.
5. Record perused and arguments heard.
6. Several appeals have been filed before this Tribunal assailing imposition of penalty for not complying with the orders of transfer to the Foreign Office, Islamabad after posting in Missions abroad. Some employees posted abroad do not wish to get back. They try to prolong stay at the country of posting on one pretext or another. This surely disturbs the requirement of manpower at the Foreign Office, Islamabad. It has also been observed that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sanctions leave to some employees, whereas, refuses the same to others similarly placed. This practice gives rise to the allegations of discrimination. The same constitutes mal-administration.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be well-advised to prepare a policy in this regard which should be applied to all and sundry without any exception.
7. In the instant case, the request of the appellant for voluntary retirement was not maintainable.
Under the Civil Servants Act, a civil servant can seek voluntary retirement after completion of 25 years of qualifying service. As stated by the appellant he joined service as Cypher Assistant in BPS- 12 in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 5-12-1981. He had, therefore, not completed 25 years of qualifying service when he first applied for retirement on 26-1-2003. In this view of the matter relief of voluntary retirement cannot be granted to the appellant.
8. _ Absence of the appellant from duty was not covered under any sanction of the competent authority. He is, therefore, guilty of misconduct for unauthorized absence. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
9. Parties to bear their own cost.
10. Parties be informed.