IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---Through this judgment we proceed to decide Civil Petition No.3625 of 2018 filed by the Chief Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Islamabad and Civil Petition No.3707 of 2018 filed by Muhammad Javed Paracha. Both petitions arise out of the same judgment and same set of facts.
2. Leave to appeal is sought against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated 11.07.2018.
Through the impugned judgment the penalty of removal from service imposed on Muhammad Javed Paracha was set aside and his resignation from service with effect from 01.07.2013 was allowed. The prayer of Muhammad Javed Paracha for reinstatement was also rejected.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this lis are that Muhammad Javed Paracha joined the appellant- department as LDC in 1995. Initially he sought leave with effect from 01.04.2008 for 90 days. On expiry of the leave he got it extended for another 730 days with effect from 01.07.2008. He got his leave further extended 1095 days which expired on 01.07.2013. He sought further extension for two years from 01.07.2013 to 01.11.2016. However, such extension was not granted. It was alleged that he absented himself with effect from 01.07.2013. Consequently, he was issued a show cause notice on the charge of wilful absence from duty. His response was found unsatisfactory. Consequently, major penalty of removal from service was imposed on him vide order dated 16.06.2014. His departmental appeal was rejected which prompted him to approach the Tribunal. The Tribunal converted his penalty of removal from service to accepting his resignation with effect from 01.07.2013. The appeal filed by Muhammad Javed Paracha seeking reinstatement was dismissed. Hence these petitions.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent had remained absent from duty with effect from 01.07.2013 without authorization. His response to the show cause notice did not gave any defence and no plausible reason was given for his absence without leave, It is further pointed out that the Respondent despite being a government servant had taken private employment during the period of his leave and there was neither reason nor justification for Tribunal to set aside the major penalty awarded by the department which was duly supported by the record.
5. The Respondent Muhammad Javed Paracha who appeared in person has submitted that on 01.07.2013 when his initial leave period expired he moved an application for extension and prayed that he may be transferred to his native city D.I. Khan and if that was not possible, his letter may be treated as his resignation.
He submits that he was neither transferred to his native city nor was his resignation accepted and there was no valid reason to subsequently initiate proceedings which resulted in imposition of major penalty of removal from service. He further submits that his removal from service was without lawful authority, the department should have taken a compassionate view of things and permitted him to serve in his native city.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Respondent in person.
7. It is clear and obvious to us that the petitioner was continuously on leave with effect from 01.04.2008 to 01.07.2013. His application for extension of leave was not allowed. He was therefore under an obligation to report for duly which he did not. However, his application for extension also stated that in case his leave could not be extended and he could not be transferred to his native city, his letter may be treated as his resignation. In view of the fact that the department neither extended his leave nor transferred him to his native city, it should have accepted his resignation and relieved him from duty. The action of the department to have waited and there after finding him absent from duty without leave initiating proceeding against him leading to removal from service was not only unnecessary but also without lawful justification. When the petitioner had tendered his resignation for all intents and purposes, there was no occasion for the department not to accept his resignation, wait for some time and treating him absent from duty initiate proceedings leading to his removal from service.
We are therefore of the view that the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the order of removal from service was unsustainable. However, in view of the fact that Muhammad Javed Paracha had tendered his resignation with effect from 01.07.2013, his resignation from service was accepted from the said date.
8. As far as the prayer for reinstatement made by Muhammad Javed Paracha is concerned, there is no denial of the fact that he was absent without leave after having tendered resignation and had according to his own admission taken private employment despite the fact that he continued to be in government service. Further, even today before us he has insisted that he only wishes to serve in his native city on account of his peculiar circumstances.
9. A government servant is required to serve where his employer wants him to serve. It is not a choice or prerogative of the employee to claim a right to serve at a place that he chose to serve. The prayer of Muhammad Javed Paracha in this regard is misconceived and unreasonable and cannot by granted. Even otherwise, having admittedly tendered his resignation on 01:07.2013 and having never formally withdrawn the same, no lawful reason or basis is made out to reinstate him into service. The Tribunal gave valid reasons and lawful justification for its findings which need no interference by this Court.
Even otherwise, in neither of the appeals any question of law of public importance has been raised that may necessitate interference by this Court.
10. For reasons recorded above, both petitions are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.