' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN)-Muhammad Aslam Dar, ex-A. S. 1,, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded S. P. Sahiwal, D. J. G.
Multan and I. G. P., Lahore, as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 27th June, 1977, 7th January, 1978 and 16th June, 1979 be declared illegal, contrary to the rules and void ab initio. He has further prayed that he be re-instated in service with all back benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Muhammad Aslam Dar was recruited as probationer A.
S.
1. On 27th March, 1971. He remained at Multan for one year and then served at Muzaffargarh.
Although he completed 3 years of his service yet no order of his confirmation were passed and he faced suspension on 31st July, 1975 on account of registration of a criminal case against him. While he was under suspension, he was transferred from Muzaffargarh to Sahiwal. He remained there from 20th October, 1975 to 24th June, 1977. While at Sahiwal he absented himself from duty and a wireless message was sent to him through S. H. O., Burewala, to make himself available. However, he was transferred to Arifwala, Police Post during May, 1977. The appellant reported for duty at Police Post, Arifwala but again transferred to police Lines, Sahiwal as Incharge first Reserve Guard.
He left Police Lines Sahiwal for Police Post, Arifwala on 13th May, 1977, vide daily diary entry No, 17 recorded at 4.30 p.m, without taking any leave or permission from the competent authority. The appellant remained absent for a period of one month and two weeks and also failed to hand over the charge of a number of cases under investigation which were with him for the purpose of completing the same. The plea of the appellant for this absence was that he remained sick. He also submitted M. Cs. To prove his illness for a period of 1 1/2 months during which he remained absent.
This plea was not accepted. He faced another suspension on 20th May, 1977 for his misbehaviour with a constable Muhammad Siddique No, 904. The appellant was dismissed from service w,e,f, 24th June, 1977 on account of wilful absence. His representation was rejected by the D. I. G. Multan on 7th January, 1980. His further representation to the I. G. P. Punjab, also failed. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondent No, 1 The main argument advanced on his behalf by the learned counsel is that he did not absent himself wilfully but his absence was on account of illness for which he had submitted M. Cs. This contention has been controverted by the learned District Attorney as well as by S. P. Sahiwal in his parawise comments with the submission that the M. Cs, so produced were unauthorised M. Cs. Secured by the appellant from a Private Practitioner and thus same were liable to be rejected.
4. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by both the parties in support of their contentions and find that the appellant contended himself by reporting his arrival, vide daily diary No, 17, dated 13th May, 1977 and left the Police Lines for Arifwala on the same date without taking any permission or leave from the competent authority. It is also a fact that he had entered in the daily diary about his sickness but at the same time it is born out from the record that he did not obtain the permission of his superior as well as did not submit himself for medical examination before the authorised Medical Officer of the Department. It is a well-settled principle enshrined in Police Rule 8.4 (a) that the grant of M. C. Is not at all equivalent to the gran of leave and thus confers no right to leave on a civil servant. It is must in such a case that such M. Cs. Alongwith application be forwarde to the competent authority to grant leave and it is only then that a civil servant or a police official can proceed on leave. We have also probe in the matter further and find that factually the appellant was never ill as he attended the Court of Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, vide his own admission. In this situation it was all the more proper for him to secure leave first and then proceed further. If he had attended the Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption Multan on 2nd June, 1977 in connection with the case F. I. R. No, 9/75 under section 161, P. P. C. Read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 of PSACE, Muzaffargarh, then he should have appeared before the competent authority or before the- Authorised Medical Officer to prove that he was really ill and was not a malingrer. The appellant in this case according to the record produced before us, did not appear in person to explain his conduct before the competent authority and also failed to submit explanation when a show-cause notice was sent to him. We have no dispute with the proposition that brought before to defend oneself, is sine qua non and the procedure laid down in the E & D Rules but when it is proved from the record that a person s proceeded against refutes to co-operate and fails to appear without an cogent reason, the competent authority have no other option but to proceed ex parte. We are fully convinced that the appellant did not adhere to the procedure laid down in the matter of medical leave as he failed to apply for, docket and also did not appear before the Police Surgeon who was proper authority in this matter to issue such certificate(s). The certificates so produced by the appellant would be of no avail to him, and the competent authority was fully justified to reject the same.
5. We have carefully perused the impugned orders passed in this case by the competent authority as well as the appellate authority and find that the action so taken against the appellant is based on cogent reason and no exception can be taken to the said orders so passed against him.
6. The result is that we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.