' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Muhammad Hanif laved ex-Senior Scale Stenographer has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Services General Administration Department and Chief Secretary to Government of the Punjab, as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in service from 21st July, 1975.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was a permanent Junior Scale Stenographer Grade I and officiating Senior Scale Stenographer. While working as such he applied for 4 months ex- Pakistan Leave which was sanctioned by an order dated 21st January, 1975. He subsequently applied for extension of the said leave which was granted vide order dated 28th July, 1975. The appellant did not report for duty after the expiry of the said leave and in consequence thereof a show-cause notice was issued on 21st July, 1977, to him through the Embassy of Pakistan in Iran. As there was no response to the said show-cause notice the Respondent No, 1 dismissed the appellant from service vide order dated 28th February, 1978. The appellant after his return to Pakistan filed a representation to Respondent No, 2 on 6th December, 1980 which was rejected on 6th January, 1981. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the departmental representative, and have perused the record of this case with their assistance. The only point which has been urged before us is that the appellant did not receive any intimation of show-cause notice through the official source, therefore the impugned order by which he has been dismissed from service is hit by the principle of natural justice of audi alteram partem. Lastly it was argued that his absence was due to illness for which he had submitted two medical certificates which were not considered by the respondents.
4. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that the appellant was asked to show because on the address given by him, therefore presumption would be that he had received the said show-cause notice. With regard to the submission of medical certificates the learned District Attorney admitted that Government did take into consideration the said two medical certificates and when it found that the same were improper and fabricated one they made enquiry on 29th December, 1975 and also considered the reply received from him on 20th April, 1976 and on finding it unsatisfactory more clarifications were asked for from him which were never received to the competent authority. This second enquiry was dated 7th June, 1976 which according to the respondents remained unanswered. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that a number of reminders were sent to the appellant on the given address and ultimately when no answer was received from him there was no alternative to pass the impugned orders.
5. We have given our noxious thought to the arguments so made by the parties and find that initially the appellant did leave Pakistan with permission of the Government for four months only and also of extra two months in lieu of the extension so granted. It was only when the appellant made a further re nest on medical ground for grant of more leave that they probed into the matter and when it was found that these medical certificates were shady, the appellant was asked for clarifications through reminders by the Department but to no avail. However, his explanation which reached the Department during this period was also found not satisfactory. The appellant furnished his new address and further communications were made to him on the address so given by him. Despite a number of reminders to the appellant when it was found that no positive response was forthcoming from the appellant, show-cause notice was sent to him through the Embassy of Pakistan in Tehran. This show-cause notice which was duly stamped by the Embassy of Pakistan in Tehran was sent to the appellant by Registered Post in Tehran. The postal receipts of the same are placed on the record. In this way there was no alternative for Department but to presume that the absence deep of the appellant was wilful and he was away from duty without any sound sufficient cause. This period of absence is about 2 years. Therefore, no latitude can be allowed to him to remain on unauthorised unsanctioned leave from the competent authority. It is also not borne out from the record that the appellant reported for duty at any time but we find that there was only his application dated 6th December, 1980 through which he asked for copies of correspondence made to him on his given address in Tehran. He was informed only of the decision of the Department and copies of the letters were rot supplied to him for the reasons that these were already sent to him in Tehran.
6. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the period of absence for full two years from duty does not deserve to be condoned. The authorities did their level best to inform him of the action so proposed and it was the appellant himself who avoided the same and remained elusive. After reaching this conclusion we do not find any justification for accepting this appeal.
However, in view of the appellant's 22 years of service, which he asserts is blotless and which assertion is not challenged by the respondents, we are inclined to take a somewhat lenient view of his misconduct. That view persuades us to find the punishment of dismissal rather excessive. We, therefore, convert the order of dismissal to order of compulsory retirement to be effective from the same date.
7. The result is that the appeal is rejected but instead of being dismissed from service with effect from 21st July, 1975 the appellant shall stand retired from that date.