1. ' M. SALEM CHAUDHEY (CHAIRMAN).-Gul Muhammad appellant, VASS dismissed from service with effect from 13th September, 1977 by the Superintendent of Police, D.
0. Khan, vide his order dated 16th February, 1978. On appeal to the D.I.-0. Of Police, MuItan Range, the order was upheld. However, as a result of a 'review-cum-mercy' petition to the I.-0. Of Police, the dismissal was made effective from the date of the S.P,'s order and its retrospective effect was cancelled.
2. ' The charge against the appellant was briefly this: After obtaining leave on medical grounds from 13th June, 1977 to 12th September, 1977 the appellant failed to report for duty. On enquiry by the Police of his home ilaqa, it was reported that he had gone to Saudi Arabia to earn his living. The S,P, failing to issue a show-cause notice because of his absence, dismissed him from service.
3. Impugning the dismissal order and the D,I.O's order upholding the dismissal before the 1.-0. Police, the appellant stated that his dismissal without show-cause notice and without hearing was Illegal and void, that he had been sending intimations about his absence to the office which did not respond and that the charge of wilful absence was not proved. In his order dated 20th February, 1979, the Additional 1.-0. Of Police, rebutted the stand taken by the appellant and expressed his conviction that there had been wilful absence from duty on the part of the appellant, who claimed to have sent applications for further medical leave for nine months but none of which reached the office of the S. P.
4. ' The appellant has claimed that his passport does not show any visit abroad after March, 1977 and that the report about his trip to Saudi Arabia was incorrect. Whether the appellant went to Saudi Arabia or not we agree with the finding of the Addl. 1,-0. That he did wilfully absent himself after 12th September 1977. It is difficult to believe that none of his medical certificates reached their destination and that he did not, after 8 years service in the police force, consider it necessary to make sure for more than nine months that his leave was actually being sanctioned or not. We notice also that the appellant was given a personal hearing both by the D.
5. 1.-G. And the Addl. I.-G.
6. ' We do not find any cogent reason to interfere in the matter. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
7. Appeal rejected.