Abdus Sattar Ijaz has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works Department and Superintending Engineer, Provincial Buildings Circle, Bahawalpur, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 23-8-79 be set aside as being without legal effect and he may be re-instated in service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who was working as Steno Typist in Quaid-i-Azam Medical College Construction Division, Bahawal--pur, was granted casual leave from 31-3-79 to 4- 4-1979 due to his sickness. The appellant remained under treatment in B.V. Hospital, Bahawalpur as indoor patient and discharged on 19-4-79 and continued treatment as out--door patient. However, there was a controversy whether the appellant could continue on leave on the strength of certificates of private Medical Practitioners or not. He had been applying for extension of leave from 25-4-79 to 30-5-79, 31-5-79 to 30-6-79, 1-7-79 to 31-7-79 and 1-8-79 to 15-9-1979, in a piecemeal manner supported by medical certificates of private medical practitioners. The Department refused to accept these medical certificates and directed him to appear before the Medical Superintedent, B. V. Hospital, Bahawalpur vide orders dated 6-5-79, 4-6-79 and 12-6-79, but he failed to do so. He was served with show-cause notice through Press on 2-8-79, by the Superintending Engineer, Provincial Buildings Circle, Bahawalpur, being the competent authority but there was no response from him. Ultimately his services were terminated for wilful absence from duty vide order dated 23-8-79 and a copy was sent to him through a registered post on his home address. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. The controversy between the parties is--
(1) whether the appellant was genuinely ill to justify medical leave ;
(2) whether he disobeyed the order of his superiors to present himself before the Medical Superintendent B. V. Hospital and get the certi--ficates of the private medical practitioners, countersigned from him
(3) whether he failed to appear before the competent authority when a show-cause notice was issued to him and he refused to attend the same.
5. The history of the case reveals that the appellant was admitted in B. V. Hospital on 3-4-79 but was discharged from hospital on 19-4-79 with a direction of five days more rest. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellant was under treatment as outdoor patient or not. He was also further required to appear before the Medical Superintendent, .B. V. Hospital, Bahawalpur, after the use of medicines and on the expiry of 5 days rest as mentioned in the discharge slip but what we find is that he has been applying for extension on the strength of medical certificates of private medical practitioners and failed to obey the mandate of his superiors to appear before the Medical Superintendent as required by the instructions contained in Government of the Punjab, S&GAD letter No. S O R-11 (S&GAD) 10-17/77 dated 10-1-1978. I have also found that although a show-cause notice was issued to him through Press on 2-8-1979, by the Superintending Engineer, Provincial Buildings Circle Bahawalpur being the competent authority yet he failed to appear before him.
6. I have seen the record of the case and find that notices were issued at his home address and cannot accept the claim of the appellant that no notice was issued to him. This address is the same on which he was informed about the termination of his service. There is also sufficient documentary evidence on the record to show that he was issued notices by the Executive Engineer, Q. M.. C. Construction Division, Bahawalpur. This also fully substantiates that he did not appear before the Medical Superintendent as required of him. This would naturally reflect on the conduct of the appellant that he was not genuinely ill and was avoiding his duty and also `t malingering. A notice in the Press-is a notice to all and I fail to understand that the appellant who was working in the Quaid-i-Azam Medical College Construction Division could have any difficulty if he was genuinely ill either to contact the M. S. Or to inform the authorities that M. S. Should visit him if he was in such a serious condition that he could not move from his bed. I do not find any of the course adopted by the appellant and also do not find from the nature of the disease mentioned in the prescription that he was so seriously ill that his movement was paralysed or that he was a person living in far-of place wherefrom he could not communicate to his superiors. Strangely enough the appellant belongs to a place where there are so many medical experts available and had no handicap of the nature which I should consider an impediment in his way to approach the Medical Superintendent.
7. The result is I do not find any justification to interfere with the decision taken by the competent authority against the appellant for wilful absence and proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merits There will be no order as to costs. The order may be communicated to the parties.