' RASHID MAHMOOD ANSARI (MEMBER).--- The appellant has been aggrieved by the order, dated 11- 3-2006 whereby a major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon him for unauthorized absence from duty from 1-9-2003 to 8-3-2005 against which his departmental appeal, dated 4-4- 2005 was turned down vide appellate order, dated 7-5-2005.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.) in BS-5 in the respondent-organization on 25-3-1978. Subsequently he was appointed as Stenographer (BS-11) in March, 1982 and was then upgraded as Personal Assistant (BS-15/16) in 1983. He was transferred to the Pakistan High Commission, London by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as stenographer vide order, dated 20-4-2000 for a period of 3 years. Before his tenure ended, he applied in March, 2003 to be given extension upto December, 2003/April, 2004. In response he was allowed extension July, 2003 to complete the educational year of his children. He applied on 19th June, 2003 for 4/5 years ex-Pakistan leave so as to complete the education of his children and the treatment of his wife. He followed up vide letter, dated 13-8-2003 wherein he reiterated his request for 4/5 years ex-Pakistan leave and also submitted that in case leave was not possible then his request for voluntary retirement due to his own health and family circumstances may be approved. The competent authority allowed him to stay in London upto 20-8-2003. However, the appellant did not report for duty at the headquarters. He was accordingly charge-sheeted vide memorandum, dated 12-6-2004. A regular inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Report, dated 10- 8-2004 was submitted. He was then issued a show-cause notice dated 29-9-2004. In this reply, dated 12-10-2004 to the show-cause notice, he again requested for 2-3 years ex-Pakistan leave. He was offered an opportunity of personal hearing on 17-1-2005 in Pakistan which he did not avail as he had not returned from London. He was eventually dismissed from service on 11-3-2005. He submitted a departmental appeal on 4-4-2005 which was rejected vide appellate order dated 7- 5-2005.
3. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that leave was refused to the appellant even though 3 years of leave was lying at his credit. He also argued that the appellant was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 11-3-2005 for unauthorized absence (from 1-9-2003 to 8- 3-2005) but the same was treated as EOL (leave without pay) vide the impugned order, dated 11-3- 2006.
4. The learned counsel for appellant further argued that the refusal of leave despite sufficient leave being available at his credit, was in contravention of the Sindh Service Tribunal's ruling in the case reported as 1988 PLC (C.S.) 897 in which it was ruled that the department could not withhold the grant of leave in view of the appellants' entitlement. He also argued that the appellant had put in more than 25 years of service and the penalty of dismissal from service was too harsh and excessive and placed reliance on the case reported as 2000 PLC (C.S.) 168.
5. The respondents have vehemently opposed the appeal in their objections. The learned counsel for respondents submitted that the practice of finding excuses for not returning to Pakistan after the end of tenure abroad needs to be discouraged since the Government servants do not like to come back, once they are posted abroad. He was of the opinion that treating the period of absence as EOL does, in no way, affect the period of absence. He also argued that the appellant had been granted extension of leave twice but his third request for further extension was denied.
According to him, leave cannot be claimed as of right and as regards the question of seeking voluntary retirement it is mandatory that the applicant-official should first join his duties and then request for retirement. The learned counsel contended that a regular inquiry was held and the appellant was given a fair chance to defend himself but he did not participate. Nor did he avail the opportunity of personal hearing.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. We have also perused the record.
7. The appellant has been dismissed from service vide Notification, dated 11-3-2006 for unauthorized absence from duty from 1-9-2003 to 1-3-2005. The appellant had been posted in the Pakistan High Commission, London vide order, dated 20-4-2000 for a tenure of 3 years. After the end of the tenure he wanted to prolong his stay in U.K. For another 4-5 years by taking ex-Pakistan leave on the ground of completing the education of children. It is a common tendency among the civil servants who are posted abroad that they try to extend their stay abroad on one ground or the other. In the case of the appellant also he wanted to continue to stay for another 4-5 years, even though by his own account only 3 years of leave was at his credit. The respondent-department did not find it possible to grant him leave for 4-5 years in public interest. However, vide letter, dated 22- 4-2003 they allowed short extension in his tenure to complete the educational year of his children.
8. The appellant, after the end of his extended tenure on 20-8-2003 was required to report for duty at the Headquarters on 1-9-2003. He did not do so. Eventually he was charge-sheeted on 12-6- 2004. During the interregnum he knew that neither his ex-Pakistan leave had been approved nor his request for voluntary retirement approved. It was incumbent upon him to return to the Headquarters immediately. In case he wanted to seek voluntary retirement, his request could have been processed as per rules after he had reported for duty in Islamabad. In our opinion he cannot take the plea that some officers belonging to other Ministries did not return from posting, abroad and were allowed to retire voluntarily. The right of a civil servant to seek voluntary retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service is subject to the provisions of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, but it is not available to a civil servant against whom a departmental inquiry is pending (page 985, ESTACODE, 2000). If a civil servant makes a request for voluntary retirement it cannot be, ipso facto, accepted. Rather, such a request has to be examined and then a decision is to be taken by the competent authority. This is all the moreso in the case of the respondent- organization keeping in view the nature of its work. The case of the appellant is therefore, distinguishable from the employees of other Ministries. The respondent-organization is essentially concerned with the question of security of the country and, therefore, maintenance of discipline in the respondent-organization is of paramount importance. Due to the sensitiveness of the work of this organization, its employees cannot be allowed to flout office discipline with impunity. The appellant willfully absented himself. He was fully aware that by refusing to return, his job would be at stake. But he took the risk. He cannot avoid the consequences.
9. Pursuant to the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
10. No order as to costs. Parties be informed.