MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, J.---By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order , dated 15- 10-2016 whereby his appointment as AVP, Compliance Wing, National Bank of Pakistan Regional Office Hyderabad has been vacated from the Bank services from the date of his un-authorized absence viz. 07-04-2015.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in National Bank of Pakistan in 1996 and vide order , dated 13-3-2015 was on medical leave for 22 days to visit his family in USA where his daughter was receiving medical treatment. After expiry of his leave, he applied for extension of the same on medical ground, but in response of which, the respondent No,1, National Bank of Pakistan required him to provide for updated medical certificate along with original application which he duly provided but instead of granting extension on his leave, the respondent No,3/A VP/Regional Head (A) Human Resources Management, Regional Office Hyderabad sent him the impugned letter whereby his appointment was vacated. The petitioner has claimed that impugned letter was issued without providing him opportunity of hearing and even without issuing him any show-cause notice, therefore, the same is illegal, void and perverse; that the respondents have completely overlooked the fact that the petitioner was under treatment in USA and as per advice of the doctor was not able to travel to Pakistan. The petitioner has further claimed that he provided all the medical certificate, letter etc., which were required by the respondent Bank vide letter dated 15-12-2015 but the Bank disregard the same, which is against the principles of natural justice.
3. In response to the notice, the respondents Nos,1 to 3 filed comments. It is their claim that the petitioner was posted as AVP, National Bank of Pakistan on 18-1-2013, when he requested for 1095 days (03 years),Ex-Pakistan Leave, however , he was granted only 577 days leave. After expiry of said period, the petitioner did not join his duty, therefore, he was issued two notices by the respondent Bank to join the duty, else, disciplinary action would be initiated against him. Resultantly , the petitioner joined his duty and the competent authority while taking a lenient view regularized his excess leave vide letter dated 5-11-2014. However , the petitioner again in January , 2015 applied for three years leave which was turned down due to non-availability of sufficient leave balance in his account. Thereafter , he applied for 22 days Ex-Pakistan leave and gave an undertaking in writing that he will not extend leave under any circumstances which was granted to him. The petitioner , however , did not join the duty as per his undertaking after expiry of his leave and instead sent applications through email for extension of leave which were regretted. The respondent Bank then as per its policy issued three notices followed by the final notice with reasonable intervals advising the petitioner to join his duty but he failed to do so.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and outcome of mala fide; that impugned order has been issued in a sheer violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner; that the respondents being public functionaries are bound to act justly, fairly and equitably while exercising powers conferred upon them; that the impugned action has been taken in violation of requirements of Article 10-A of the Constitution which mandates for free and fair trial; that the petitioner's appointment has been vacated without af fording him opportunity of hearing and without even issuing him show-cause notice.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that this petition is not maintainable as the same has been filed by the petitioner through his attorney and he himself it still in USA; that the petitioner even after vacation of his appointment has not returned to Pakistan and pleaded his case before the competent authority; that before vacating the appoint ment of the petitioner as per policy of the National Bank of Pakistan three notices with reasonable interval and the final notice were issued to him on his address in Pakistan and on his address in USA advising him to appear and join his duty but he failed to comply with and remained absent unauthorizedly .
6. We have heard the parties and peruse d the material available on record. The record reflects that virtually since 2013 the petitioner is in USA. Initially in 2013 he was granted 577 days leave but he failed to join his duty after expiry of the said period and only after the two notices requiring him to resume duty were served upon him, he did so. But then within two months thereof, he against applied for 3 years leave, which was turned down. And then only on his undertaking to join duty, he was granted 22 days Ex-Pakistan leave with the condition that no extension of leave would be allowed to him under any circumstances whatsoever , which is mentioned in the memorandum, dated 11-3-2015 and office order dated 13-3-2015 whereby he was granted leave and relieved off his duty. The petitioner , however , did not join his duty as per his undertaking and kept on apply ing for extension of his leave on medical ground, which was not granted to him for want of verification of record sent by him. Hence the first notice dated 9-4-2015 for his un-authorized absence from the duty was issued to not only on his home address in Hyderabad but also on his address in USA followed by second notice dated 16-4-2 015 and third notice dated 24-4- 2015 advising him to resume his duty immediately . The final notice to the petitioner was issued on 28-4-2015 and he was directed to resume his duty within three days of receipt of said notice. The record reflects that the petitioner in response to the above said notices did not return to Pakistan and join duty, instead he sent applications for extension of his leave on medical ground along with medical certificate dated 4-3-2015 showing that he was not able to travel to Pakistan. The National Bank of Pakistan, vide letters dated 22-6-2015 and 15-7-2015 tried to get verification of the medical record of the petitioner from Dr. Foad Sherif f MD, Kaiser Permanente, Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, P.C. from whom the petitioner was purportedly receiving medical treatment. But National Bank of Pakistan did not receive any response from the said Doctor and medical record submitted by the petitioner could not be verified. Resultantly , the impugned order was passed against the petitioner . Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing tried to argue that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity before passing of the impugned order which is against the principles of natural justice. The record however , speaks otherwise, the petitioner was continuously in contact with the National Bank of Pakistan Authorities through email, etc., and was aware of the notices which were issued in line with Bank Policy , and he was also aware that his application for extension of leave was rejected, yet he did not return and join duty. It is not the case of the petitioner that he did not receive the notices including the final notice and therefore was not aware of the proceedings being taken against him for his absence. Therefore, the ground that he was not fairly treated by the National Bank of Pakistan does not appear to be sustainable, In regard to the plea of the petitioner that due to his illness he was not able to travel to Pakistan, it may be mentioned that the medical record which the petitioner sent in support of his application could not be verified and the Bank's letters to the Doctor concerned in this regard were never responded. Even after vacation of his appointment in January , 2016, the petitioner has not returned to contest his case before the competent authority , and instead he has filed this petition through his attorney . Record bears testimony that the petitioner has not been able to justify his continuous unauthorized absence from the duty since 7-4-2015. In these facts and circumstances, in our view, the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution. However , before parting with this order , we must mention that during arguments, learned counsel for National Bank of Pakistan informed us that the petitioner served the Bank from 1996 and remained its employee till January , 2016, therefore, he would be entitled to the dues accrued to him for the said period. In view of such statement and in addition to above discussion, no case warranting interference by this Court is made out.
These are the reasons for our short order dated 9-5-2017 whereby this petition was dismissed.