1. ' M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN). -This is an appeal filed by Muhammad Aslam, Ex-Patwari Tehsil Gujranwala under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 against the orders dated 4th May 1977 and 20th October, 1979 passed by Assistant Commissioner (Collector) and Commissioner, Lahore Division respectively whereby by these orders the appellant was dismissed from service.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as Patwari Circle Tarumin in the year 1972.
3. He absented himself from duty without permission and also failed to record entries in Khasra Girdawari relating to Kharif, 1972 of village Dharowali and Ampiur of the same Tehsil. It was further noted that the appellant was living out of his circle most of the time. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by E.A.C. (R.) Gujranwala who submitted his report on 22nd October 1975. A show cause notice was issued under rule 8 of E & D Rules, 1975 and the appellant was dismissed from service on 20th April 1976. He filed an appeal against the orders of said dismissal and the case was remanded for fresh decision on the ground that show-cause notice issued to the appellant was defective. A fresh show-cause notice under rule 9.1 of West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 was served upon him. He was heard and the Collector found him guilty of all the charges. The appellant was dismissed accordingly.
4. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and have perused all the relevant record and detailed orders of the officers concerned. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the Commissioner Lahore Division failed to appreciate the facts and law of the case and the impugned orders were result of misreading of facts. He has also challenged the jurisdiction of the Collector by contending that only the District Collector, Gujranwala was the competent authority to remove the petitioner from service and thus the orders of the learned Assistant Commissioner were void. With regard to his absence from duty a great stress was laid on the fact that the appellant's absence was due to his illness and soon after his recovery he immediately reported for duty and produced fitness certificate before the authority concerned. According to the appellant his absence was not wilful but the same has not been considered by the two Officers who judged his case. With regard to his default regarding the entries in the Crop Inspection Register, he has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation. It was also submitted that there was no cogent proof against him as no evidence was forthcoming to prove that he was not living in the Circle as required under the rules. He assailed both the orders as outcome of prejudice and malice. On behalf of the Respondent the Government Pleader has controverted these pleas and has pointed out that the Enquiry Officer who submitted his report on 22nd October 1975 found all the allegations stood proved against him and also found that the conduct of the appellant was highly objectionable throughout the enquiry by deploying delaying tactics and absenting himself during the course of the said enquiry and thus prolonged the said enquiry to a period of three years. While going through the two judgments we also found that the appellant did not obey the orders of his superiors at the time of his transfer and took away some of the Revenue record also with him. The authorities were constrained to break open the look of Patwarkhana, and with great reluctance the charge was handed over on 22nd November, 1977 by the appellant. With regard to his conduct it was submitted that during the course of enquiry the statements of as many as for witnesses were recorded in his absence. With regard to his plea that he was absent due to illness, this Court called upon him to produce before it the evidence that he remained admitted in the Hospital during the said period but he failed to produce the same. An apology of a certificate has been placed by him on record in the form of a Medical Certificate by Doctor K.H. Shaikh dated 8th November, 1980 which hardly substantiates his plea that he was admitted in the Hospital during the said period of absence. The perusal of both the orders of Assistant Commissioner-cum-Collector as well of the Commissioner, Lahore Division have dealt comprehensively with all the points raised by the appellant in his favour and they have rightly observed that he remained absent without permission for almost two months without leave, which fact by itself calls for his dismissal from service under the rules. The appellant with his conduct in service as well as in the course of enquiry hardly seems to be a suitable person to be retained in service. We find no cogent reason to interfere with the findings of the two officers who have fully applied their minds and have come to a justified decision. The result is that the appeal is dismissed in limine. Announced in the presence of the parties.