AYESHA A. MALIK, J.---This Civil Appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 03.11.2020 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore ("the Tribunal ") in Appeal No. 1649 of 2020. Leave was granted vide order dated 15.12.2021 essential on the ground that there was no factual controversy as admittedly the Respondent was working as an english teacher in Saudi Arabia and his request for conversion of his leave into deputation was rejected on 30.09.2003 after which he did not raise any grievance against his rejection order yet kept on pursing the matter of deputation until he was dismissed from service.
2. The basic facts of the case are that the Respondent was appointed as Subjec t Specialist (English), BS-17 on 14.02.1994 on temporary basis after which he was absorbed in the department. He applied for EX-Pakistan Leave for three years w.e.f., 15.07.2002, however , was granted Ex-Pakistan Leave for one-year w.e.f. 01.09.2002 to 31.08.2003 on 24.07.2002. On expiry of his leave period, admittedly he did not join the department. Instead he moved an application on 06.08.2003 seeking conversion of the Ex-Pakistan Leav e into deputation on the ground that he is working in Saudi Arabia as an English teacher and that the Saudi Govern ment is desirous of renewing his contract. Hence he sought conversion of his leave into deputation uptil 31.08.2005. The contention of the Appellants is that this request was rejected on 30.09.2003 and notwithstanding this fact, the Respondent repeatedly made the same request from 06.08.2003 uptil 2018. Ultimately , show cause notice was issued to the Respondent on 04.04.2019 under the Punjab Employees, Efficiency , Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 ("PEEDA Act") for wilful absence from duty which led to his dismissal from service w.e.f. 01.09:2003. Against this order , the Respondent filed an appeal on 19.02.2020, which was dismissed. He then filed a service appeal before the Tribunal on 21.04.2020 wherein the impugned judgment partially allowed the appeal on the ground that a de novo inquiry must be conducted to establish the issue of wilful absence from duty. Resultantly , the Respondent was reinstated into service and the competent authority was to decide the status of the intervening period.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General ("AAG"), states that the fact of wilful absence from duty is admitted and that to, for a period of more than 16 years. Furthermore; during this time, the Respondent admittedly was working as an english teacher in Saudi Arabia, hence his contention that he be retained in service is totally without basis and uncalled for. Learned counsel states that the Respondent has repeatedly made applications to the department, which essentially kept the matter pending as he sought conversion of his extra ordinary leave into deputation despite the fact that he knew that the same had been rejected. Learned AAG also states that the Respondent left for Saudi Arabia in 2002 where he was gainfully employed and on his return to Pakistan in 2019 his request of rejoining the service was also rejected. Learned AAG states that there is no requirement of any de novo inquiry given that wilful absence from duty is admitted and employment in Saudi Arabia is also admitted.
4. The Respondent appeared in person. The main ground urged by him is that there was no inquiry in the matter and that the order of dismissal from service was given with retrospective effect, which is illegal. He states that order of dismissal from service dated 17.02.2020 has been, given, effect from 01.09.2003, ? which is not justifiable under the law. He does not dispute the fact that he was absent from duty for 16 years and that he worked during this time in Saudi Arabia.
5. We have heard the learned AAG as well as the Respondent in person and have examined the record. The Respondent does not deny that he was sanctioned one year leave on 24.07.2002, consequent to which he proceeded to Saudi Arabia. He also does not deny that he was gainfully employed through this time in Saudi Arabia uptil 2019 as an english teacher . The impugned judgment has totally , ignored this aspect of the matter and ignored the record where the admission is evident from the letters written by. the. Respondent to the department where he admits that he is in Saudi Arabia on account of the fact that he is gainfully employed there. Therefore, from 2003 onward he has been absent from duty and notwithstanding this glaring fact the impugned judgment has failed to consider this aspect and has allowed the appeal of the Respondent for the purposes of a de novo inquiry . We find that in this case de novo proceedings are not required as this Court has already held in Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others v. Noor-ul- Amin (2021 SCMR 959) and National Bank of Pakistan and (mother v. Zahoor Ahmad Mengal (2021 SCMR 144) that absence from duty is not a disputed fact and thus, there is no need to hold a regular inquiry in the matter .
6, We also note that on the expiry of his Ex-Pakistan Leave on 31.08.2003 he admittedly did not join his department and instead sought the conversion of his leave into deputation. The record shows that he moved repeated applications on this subject i.e. on 06.08.2003, 28.06.2004, 18.08.2006, 25.08.2009, 30.08.2012, 18.08.2014, 30.08.2017 and 05.09.2018. He then filed Writ Petition No.8949 of 2018/BWP before the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in which he sought a direction that his representations be decided.
Consequent to this Writ Petition, he was called to appear before the Secretary School Education on 08.04.2019 and on 09.04.2019, however he failed to appear and his representation was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 25.07.2019. He then moved Criminal Original No.83-W of 2019, consequent to which he was again directed to appear before the Secretary School Education, who heard him on 18.10.2019 and 24.10.2019 where the Respondent then took the stance that instead of dismissal from service he should be compulsory retired from service. This request of the Respondent was considered and dismissed on 19.02.2020 given that he had not made any such request to the department. The said order also finds that his request for extension of his Ex-Pakistan Leave and request for conversion of leave into deputation was rejected twice and notwithstanding the same, he kept moving the same applications before the department. Finally , he was dismissed from service on 17.02.2020 and the order was given effect from 01.09 .2003 being the date when he became absent from duty. Thereafter , the Respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal wherein the main ground that he-took was that he kept requesting the department for extension' in his leave and conversion of extra ordinary leave into deputation yet was given no response, hence he was compelled to file W .P. No.8949 in the year 2018.
7. Having examined the record, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has totally ignored the record as well as the law settled by this Court that in cases of wilful absence from duty no inquiry is required. In this case, the Respondent while relying on multiple letters that he has written and admitted to his absence from duty on account of the fact that he has been working in Sandi Arabia as an english teacher for a period of 16 years. This admission alone, is sufficient to take action against the Respondent. We also note that since the Respondent admits to the fact that he was never sanctioned any leave beyond one-year period, the consistent requests for extension in the leave and conversion of leave into deputation appears to be a mala fide exercise to prevent his dismissal from service. In this regard, even the Appellant has not explained the reason why they waited almost 17 years to proceed against the Respondent given that the Respondent himself admitted his wilful absence from duty from 2003. Under the circumstances, there is no justification for the Appellant to have ignored the matter for so long. In fact, it is on the instance of the Respondent, who filed Writ Petition No.8949 of 2018/BWP before the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur seeking a direction on his multiple applica tions that the Secretary School Education ultimately dismissed him from service.
8. We find that the impugned judgment has totally ignored the record and the facts of this case. The department has also been totally negligent in pursing this matter and has allowed the Respondent to remain absent from duty for so long. On the issue of retrospective effect, we find that admittedly , the Respon dent has been absent from duty w.e.f. 01.09.2003, hence no illegality is made out by considering his dismissal from there as he has not worked with the department since the given date.
9. In view of the above this Appeal is allow ed and the impugned judgment dated 03.11.2020 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.1649 of 2020 is set aside.