Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Inam-ur-Rehman Alvi was Sub-Engineer E & M (BS-11) in the Office of Director Works & Chief Engineer (DCI), GHQ, Rawalpindi. He proceeded abroad for study without approval of the competent authority. It transpires from the record that he had submitted an application for ex-Pakistan leave on 16.08.2010 to study in Germany. His period of absence from duty from 16.10.2010 to 14.04.2011 was treated as EOL (without pay) vide order dated 24.06.2011. His departmental appeal dated 30.06.2011 was not responded. This order was challenged by him by filing Appeal No, 1857(R)CS/2011. However, this appeal was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh appeal. Accordingly the present appeal was filed.
2. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the competent authority was fully justified in treating the period of absence of the appellant from duty as EOL (without pay) since he had proceeded abroad without permission and had taken admission in a Germany University, that too without permission.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
4. No civil servant can get admission even in a local university without prior permission of the competent authority. In this case the appellant had the audacity to get admission in a foreign university without permission. Thus he had committed a serious misconduct. Under the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964 permission can be granted only by the Head of Department for study abroad. Even otherwise an employee in BS-11 is not entitled for study leave as such leave can be granted only to officers in BS-16 and above. In this regard SI. No, 21, Chapter V, Revised Leave Rules, 1980 at page 502 of the ESTACODE, 2007 Edition can be looked into.
5. We are unable to scribe to this contention of the appellant that he had verbally informed his Head of Department that he was taking admission in a foreign university. Such a statement, even if it is correct, is against law. A competent authority can also not give verbal permission in this regard. The request has to be in writing and in the same manner the permission order has also to be in writing.
6. We have seen the written objections filed by the respondents. There is an averment to the effect that the appellant had made some tampering in his application. This allegation is not worth consideration since the appellant was not charge sheeted for that.
7. Surprisingly no penalty has been given to the appellant. His absence only from duty has been regularized. We fail to understand as to why he filed the present appeal. He was definitely away from duly. In fact he was not even in Pakistan. He had not taken permission for study abroad. Thus his absence period could not be treated as leave with pay. In our view the competent authority had passed perfectly a legal and valid order in treating the period of absence as EOL (without pay).
8. Since the impugned order is quite legal, the appeal is dismissed.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
10.Parties shall be informed accordingly.