' This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2013 of the learned District Judge, Haripur, whereby the respondents' appeal, against the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2011 of the learned Civil Judge-W, Haripur, has been accepted.
2. Short facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the respondents had filed a suit against the petitioners for recovery of Rs, 9,18,413/-. It was the respondents' case that the Petitioner No, 1 was their employee, who was selected and awarded scholarship by. The Higher Education Commission for getting higher education from Seoul National, University South Korea and to this effect a formal agreement was executed between the Petitioner No, 1 and the Higher Education Commission on 04.08.2006. It was further the respondents' case that the Petitioner No, 1 had executed a bond on 0'7.08.2006 to the effect that on completion of this higher studies, he will return and serve his Organization for a specific period and in case of failure to do so, he will pay his Organization all payments and expenditures made and incurred on him by the respondents. According to the respondents after getting higher education at their expense, Petitioner No, 1 did not return his country, therefore, he and his sureties, i,e, Petitioner No, 2 and 3 jointly and severally have made themselves liable to pay them whatever has been iiaid to and incurred on the Petitioner No, 1.
Petitioners, on their end, contested the suit by filing their written statement wherein they refuted the respondents' claim. On the case issues, parties to the suit adduced their respective evidence, whereafter the respondents' suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.05.2011. Respondents impugned the dismissal in appeal, which was accepted by the learned appellate Court on 26.02.2013, hence, the instant revision petition by the petitioners- defendants.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on no count the respondents' suit was to be decreed as the Petitioner No, 1 has not violated any of the terms and conditions of the agreement or of the bond so executed by him. Elaborating her stance, learned counsel submitted that prior to the expiry of the agreed period and completion of MS Engineering Program by the petitioner, the respondents had dispatched premature letters calling upon him to return Pakistan, which were quite contrary to the essence of the agreement and bond so executed by the petitioners. It was further argued that the learned trial Court through a well reasoned judgment had dismissed the respondents' suit but for no good reasons and grounds the dismissal was reversed by the learned appellate Court, which judgment and decree is liable to be set aside by this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction.
4. As against the above, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Petitioner No, 1.
Had failed to honour his commitment made with the respondents as he did not return the country after possessing himself with higher education for which he was selected and sent by the respondents on their expense. The learned counsel contended that the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was rightly set aside by the learned appellate Court as same was quite contrary to the evidence b rought by the respondents in support of their case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case record.
6. Perusal of the case record would reveal that admittedly Petitioner No, 1 was selected for his MS Engineering Program at the expense of the respondents' Organization, which incurred on him an amount of Rs, 9,18,413/-. Record of the case shows that after equipping himself with MS Engineering program Petitioner No, 1 did not return Pakistan to serve his Organization, as per his commitment, which had sent him for higher education. According to the case record, after completion of his higher studies, Petitioner No, 1 was served by the respondents with a notice on 11.06.2008 calling upon him to report his' parent Organization (Ex.PW-1/8) but he did not so report. Thereafter, further notices were issued requiring him to join his department (Ex.PW-1/9 and Ex.PW-1/10) but he did not act upon the ibid notices rather sent a request for grant of leave to attend a seminar in USA, which was turned down.
7. Case record shows that on 01.08.2008, Higher Education Commission had written a letter to the petitioner's Organization (Ex.PW-1/7) to the effect that after successful defense of their theses in early June, 2008 and completion of their MS Engineering program two scholars, namely, Zafar Hameed, i,e, the Petitioner No, 1 and Muhammad Ilyas, another scholar, were trying to prolong their stay in South Korea by presenting incorrect facts both to Higher Education Commission and their parent Organizations, therefore, necessary legal action under the rule of business be taken against them. Pursuant to the ibid letter, necessary action was taken against the Petitioner No, 1 and the other by the respondents calling upon them to honour their commitments but they resorted to lame excuses and did not honour their commitments to return the country. In the above stated situation, the respondents were well within their right to demand from the petitioners to pay them what the Petitioner No, 1 had receive from them and what they had spent on him. Record of the case shows that the respondents have fully acted upon the initial agreement executed by the HEC with the Petitioner No, 1 while on the other hand, he has not honoured his commitment, which was expected of him. In such scenario, suit of the respondents was rightly decreed.
8. Regarding contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, that the call up notices sent by the respondents to the petitioners were premature, suffice it to say that such contention of the learned counsel is of no help to her, as there is overwhelming evidence on record that though the petitioner had completed his Ms. Engineering Program but for lame excuses he stayed in South Korea beyond the prescribed period. It is also noteworthy that some other colleagues of the Petitioner No, 1 who were selected for higher studies alongwith him, have already returned Pakistan and are serving their parent Organization while the petitioner is still out of country and the Court was informed that even now he is serving in USA. The Court was further informed that for his conduct and willful absence, the respondents have terminated the petitioner from his service.
9. It is worth to mention that National Engineering and Scientific Commission (NESCOM) i,e, parent Organization of the Petitioner No, 1 is a very sensitive Organization of the country and persons serving therein are not ordinary employees like those working in other Government departments.
Employees of NESCOM, must demonstrate special responsibility and conduct keeping in view the' importance and sensitivity of their Organization as well as the nature of their job. Therefore, no leniency could be taken with those, who do not honour their commitments made with an institution like NESCOM.
10. Thorough- and careful examination of the case record would show that the respondents had proved their case against the petitioners through worth reliable oral and documentary evidence and, as such, the learned appellate Court has rightly decreed their suit. As the Petitioner No, 1 has failed to honour the commitment so made by him with the respondents through initial agreement and then by executing a bond, therefore, he and his sureties have rightly been held liable to pay back all the expenses incurred on him by the respondents. The learned 'appellate Court has committed no illegality by accepting the respondents' appeal and passing the judgment and decree impugned by the petitioners. Therefore the instant revision petition, being bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed with costs.
(R.A.) .