' MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHRY, CHAIRMAN --- This appeal has been filed against the orders of Civil Judge Court No, I, Rawalakot dated 19.12.2008 and 03.01.2009, through which the appellant was punished with compulsory retirement and respondent Muhammad Nasir Khan was appointed as Process Server in place of the appellant.
2. Brief facts of the present matter are that the appellant was an employee of judicial department and performing his duties as Process Server in the Court of Civil Judge Court No, I, Rawalakot. The appellant got sanctioned a leave for six months from 01.01.2008 to 30.06.2008. After expiry of the period of said leave, the appellant did not join his duty. As a result, he was proceeded against under AJ&K Civil Servants Removal from Services (Special Powers) Act, 2001 and was retired compulsorily on 19.12.2008 by the Civil Judge Court No, I, Rawalakot. Later on, the respondent Muhammad Nasir Khan was appointed as Process Server in place of the appellant on 03.01.2009 by, the learned Civil Judge Court No, I, Rawalakot. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.
3. It was stated in the memorandum of appeal that the learned Civil Judge proceeded against the appellant without legal justification. The learned Judge has passed an arbitrary and capricious order, which is against the provisions of law and constitution. The order of retirement was passed without hearing the appellant. It was prayed to accept the appeal reinstating the appellant on the post of Process Server and to set aside the order of appointment of the respondent Muhammad Nasir Khan.
4. The appeal preferred by the appellant was admitted for regular hearing and the respondents were issued notices for submission of objections. The respondent Muhammad Nasir Khan stated through objections that the appellant has got no cause of action to file the instant appeal. The appellant did not join his duties after expiry of period of the said leave. He was issued notices in accordance with the provisions of law and it was reported that the appellant was performing his job abroad. After fulfilling the requirements of the related provisions of law, the appellant was proceeded against and he was retired compulsorily by the competent authority. The respondent was appointed as Process Server after retirement order of the appellant was passed, on recommendation of the selection committee. It was prayed to dismiss the appeal.
5. Ex parte order was passed against the respondent Muhammad Nasir Khan as no one appeared on his behalf later on. Ex parte arguments were heard. The learned counsel for the appellant repeated the version of the appellant as stated in the memorandum of appeal. No need is required to produce the arguments in black and white.
6. After hearing the arguments, I have gone through the record available and the relevant law minutely. The record reveals that a privilege leave was sanctioned in favour of the appellant for six months starting from 01.01.2008 upto 30.
6.2008. It is an admitted fact that the appellant went to abroad without approval of Ex-Pakistan leave. He remained abroad and did not join his duties after expiry of the leave period. Due to absence of the appellant from his duties, the appellant was issued a notice by the Civil Judge Court No, I, Rawalakot on 26.09.2008 and he was asked to join his duties within ten (10) days and to explain the reasons of his absence. The appellant did not join his duties as it was reported that he was serving in abroad. Another notice was issued on 06.10.2008 through which he was asked to join his duty within one week and to explain the reasons of his absence. It was reported again that the appellant works in abroad. A further notice was issued on 14.10.2008 referring the previous notices but the same report being in abroad was made. Ultimately, a proclamation regarding absence of the appellant was advertised and the appellant was asked to join his duty and to explain the reasons of his absence within twenty-five (25) days, but the appellant remained absent. The authority/Civil Judge No, 1 Rawalakot, dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5(4) of the said Act and recording the reasons punished the appellant with compulsory retirement on 19.12.2008. All the above-mentioned facts remained unrebutted. Even the appellant did not produce any proof with the appeal.
7. Any competent authority is empowered to dispense with the inquiry against any employee under the Act, 2001 if sufficient documentary evidence against the said employee is available or if authority is satisfied that there is no need of holding an inquiry against the concerned employee.
The said provision of the AJ&K Civil Servants Removal from Services (Special Powers) Act, 2001 is reproduced as under:--- "5(4). The competent authority may dispense with the inquiry under sub- section (1) if it' is in possession of sufficient documentary evidence'against the accused, or for reasons to be recorded in writing; it is satisfied that there is no need of holding an inquiry."
' In the present case, the competent authority had sufficient documentary proof on record regarding sanction of leave in favour of the appellant and absence of the appellant from his duty for more than six months, so there was no need of any inquiry. The appellant was afforded many opportunities but he did not avail the same.
8. As far the appointment of the respondent Muhammad Nasir Khan is concerned, his appointment was made on the recommendation of selection committee and in accordance with provisions of law on the post which was lying vacant. No proof has been placed on record otherwise.
' Having in view the above-mentioned circumstances, no need is required to indulge into the findings recorded by the competent authority as those are based on sound and cogent reasons.
As a result, the instant appeal fails which is hereby dismissed with no order as to the costs.