Nasrullah Khan Achakzai, Chairman.--The appellant has filed this service appeal under Section 4 of. The Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the impugned order dated 19.1.2012 and 29.3.2012, with a prayer to declare these orders as illegal and respondents be directed to release the withheld salaries of the. Appellant.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant is a Doctor serving in Health Department Government of Balochistan as Lady Medical Officer (B-17). On 23-11-2010, a Show- Cause Notice was issued to her by Respondent No. 1 under Section 3 of Removal from Service (Special Power) Ordinance, 2000 on the ground that she remained absent from her duty w.e.f. 10- 04-2010 till the date of the issuance of the notice dated 23-11-2010. The appellant filed a reply to the Show-Cause Notice dated nil, wherein she denied the allegations levelled in the Show-Cause Notice issued to her. On 19-01-2012, proceedings under Section 3 of Removal from Service (Special Power) Ordinance, 2000 were finalized, wherein the competent authority was pleased to impose the following penalties upon the appellant:-
(i) Stoppage of two annual increments.
(ii) Absence period w.e.f. 10-04-2010 to 11-01-2011 is hereby converted into Extra-Ordinary Leave (without pay and allowance).
(iii) Recovery of the salary of the absence period w.e.f.
10.04.2010 to 11-01-2011.
(iv) Censured.
3. The appellant filed departmental appeal/representation against the impugned Notification dated 19-01-2012, before the appellate authority on 31-01-2012, the said representation has not been decided till now. Thus being aggrieved from the above order the appellant filed the present appeal before this Tribunal on 29-01-2013.
4. On notice, the Respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 have filed their replies, wherein they stated that the appellant was posted as Lady Medical Officer at Sandeman Provincial Hospital Quetta on 24th March 2010. During the period of her posting at Sandeman Provincial Hospital Quetta she did not perform her duties regularly and remained absent from Government duty. On 08-04-2010, the Medical Superintendent of Sandeman Provincial Hospital Quetta assigned her duties in the Dermatology Department. The head of the Dermatology Department for the third time informed the Medical Superintendent about her willful absence from Government duty on 21 -08-2010. The Medical Superintendent on 21-08-2010 informed the Secretary Health Government of Balochistan about her continuous willful absence and requested to take necessary action against the appellant, Thus, Show-Cause Notice was issued to the appellant which has been duty replied by her.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant Mr.Arther Victor and learned Assistant Advocate General Mr.Abdul Latif Kakar and perused the record with their assistance. It is an admitted position that she was posted at Dermatology Department but she refused to work and willfully absented herself from duty. The statement of Medical Superintendent of Sandeman Provincial Hospital Quetta has been duly supported by the head of Dermatology Department Unit No. II that the appellant has remained absent from her official duty w.e.f. 10-04-2010 to 11-01-2011.
The appellant has only denied her absence in reply to the Show-Cause Notice dated 31-11-2010 and stated that she was regularly drawing her pays from the Government Treasury Office and her absence from duty does not arise. We have noted that the pay slips are computerized and the amount of salary directly comes to the Bank and deposited in her Bank account. This itself does not show that the appellant is on duty, on perusal of her reply to the Show-cause Notice reveals that she has failed to legally and properly rebut he allegation of her willful absence from duty as asserted by the Medical Superintendent Sandeman Hospital Quetta and Head of Dermatology Department. So, the denial in rebuttal of her absence in her reply to Show-Cause Notice are concocted and not based on facts and do not appeals to reason. We are of the view that a Doctor is only a Doctor nothing else and the Doctor has to abide by her own professional ethics and law, this has to be followed at any cost.
6. The appellant has filed the departmental appeal on 31.01.2012, against the impugned Notification dated 19-01-2012 before the appellate authority. Whereas, she approached to this Tribunal on 29- 01-2013 i.e. After almost one year, while the period for filing an appeal before Tribunal against the impugned order is totally one hundred twenty (120) days and the reason for condonation as stated by the appellant in her CMA No. 39/2013 is that the did not know about the issuance of Show-Cause Notice, but here the matter is based on different footings as the appellant has filed his departmental appeal against the impugned Notification well within time, but she approached to this Tribunal after an extra ordinarily delay of almost six (6) months, which has not been explained in CMA No. 39/2013 in a plausible manner. Thus in our considered view the delay has not been explained in a acceptable manner, as such we are of the view that the appeal is grossly barred by time.
7. So far as the contention of the counsel for appellant that no proper inquiry has been held is concern, we are of the view that the competent authority has discretionary power in Removal from Service (Special Power) Ordinance, 2000, Section 5 sub-section (4) to dispense with the Inquiry under sub-section (1), "if it is in position of sufficient documentary evidence against the accused or reasons be recorded in writing, it is satisfied that there is no need of holding an inquiry". As there was sufficient evidence against the appellant before the competent authority, as such, there was infact no need of further inquiry into the matter. The last contention for the counsel for appellant that the proceedings should have not been taken against the appellant under Removal from Service (Special Power) Ordinance, 2000. This argument is not maintainable at this stage and this plea has not been taken by the appellant while filing her reply to the Show-Cause Notice dated 23- 11-2010.
8. Thus from the above mentioned reasons we see no merit in this appeal, which is grossly time barred, is hereby dismissed. With no order as to costs. File after completion be consigned to record.