ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Mr. Anwar-ud-Din, Ex-Sub- Engineer-11, Provincial Buildings Circle, 9, Shiri Ram Road, Islampura, Lahore, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Secretary Buildings Department, Shaukat Ali Shaheen, XEN-I, Medical Provincial Buildings Division, Lahore, Raja Muhammad Akhtarullah Khan, Superintending Engineer-I1, Provincial Buildings Circle, Lahore, and Aftab Ahmad Khan, Director Administration, Office of the Chief Engineer, Punjab Buildings Department, Lahore, as respon--dents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the orders of the Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 removing the appellant and rejecting his appeals be set aside and the appellant re-instated in service with full benefits.
3. The appellant, Mr. Anwar-ud-Din, ex-Sub-Engineer-II, Provincial Circle,
9. Shiri Ram Road, Islampura Lahore, applied for two days casual leave on 30th August, 1.979, which was not granted as he was required to attend Government works in absence of two other Sub---Engineers who had to attend training at Building Research Station w.e.f. 1st September, 1979. Although the appellant noted the orders of Sub---Divisional Officer yet he remained absent from duty on 1st September, 1979. On 2nd September, 1979, the appellant submitted leave applica--tion for grant of leave from 1st September, 1979 to 3rd September, 1979 on account of his own illness without any medical certificate which was rejected by his Sub-Divisional officer with the direction to attend office at once and explain reason for absence from duty, but he did not care to attend the office. The appellant came in his office on 8th September, 1979 and 9th September, 1979 at 10-00 a respectively, but he left office, thereafter, on both days without any intimation and remained absent on these days as well. His explanation for the absence was called. A letter was sent through peon at his home address which was not received by him or his family members. Thereafter, a reminder along--with original letter was sent through registered A. D. At his home address which was received undelivered. The postman recorded the following remarks:---- "that he visited his home from 17th September, 1979 to 20th September, 1979 but in spite of continuous visits, the person con--cerned was not found."
The appellant remained absent from duty from 10th September, 1979 to 14th September, 1979 without any intimation. On 15th September, 1979 the appellant submitted 4 days leave application from 15th September, 1979 to 18th September, 1979 without giving any home address. This leave was not sanctioned as no casual leave was due to him. He submitted another leave application for leave from 19th September, 1979 to 30th September, 1979 on account of illness without medical certificate and without giving any address. In the meanwhile, the services of the appellant were placed at the disposal of Managing Director. Punjab Road Transport Board, Lahore, and the appellant was required to be relieved to join this post on deputation from 1st October, 1979. In this regard necessary intimation was given to the appellant through registered A. D. At his home address which was received unde--livered with the following remarks of the postman on the envelope:- ---That the addressee let out his house and his present address is not known."
Another leave application from 1st October, 1979 to 15th October, 1979 was received from the appellant by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Incharge) which was returned to him wherein it was mentioned that his services were placed at the disposal of the Punjab Road Transport Board.
Thereafter, no leave application was received from the appellant in the Sub-Divisional Office and he remained absent wilfully. He did not also join with the Punjab Road Transport Board where his services were placed. Hence, the appellant remained employed with the Buildings Department, who proceeded to take action against him under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. As the appellant was not receiving the letters sent to him, the show cause notice was published in the newspaper directing him to join his duty within 7 days from the date of publication of notice and explain reasons for wilful absence from duty. As there was no response to this even, from the appellant, two show-cause notices, one in Pakistan Times, dated 27th November, 1979 and another in Imroze dated 26th November, 1979, were published affording him opportunity of personal hearing as he was absconding from duty from 30th August, 1979 and as a result of disciplin--ary proceedings, the authorised officer had recommended his removal from service. It was mentioned in these notices that ex pane action would be taken against him failing his personal appearance. Even then, there was do response and as such the appellant remained absent from duty deliberately and became guilty of misconduct. The appellant was removed from service by the competent authority being no other alter--native and this impugned order of removal from service by Superintend--ing Engineer-II, Provincial Building: Circle, Lahore, dated 11 December, 1979 was published in the newspapers dated 3rd January, 1980 in Pakistan Times and 4th January, 1980, in Mashriq. He made an appeal to Respondent No. 4. He was also heard in person. The appeal was rejected. Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appel--lant bad submitted the medical certificates for the period -he was away from duty and under the rules these should have been accepted by the respondents and leave granted to him. Also some of the medical certificates submitted by the appellant were returned by the Respondent No. 2, mentioning that he had been transferred to Punjab Road Transport Board and he was no more on duty with the Building Department. Thus, the Buildings Department was not competent to proceed against him. Moreover, the notices were sent to the appellant on wrong addresses. The proceedings against the appellantth were conducted ex parte. Penalty was not specified in the show-cause notice and he was condemned unheard. A show-cause notice was given to him only and no enquiry was conducted against the appellant. The appellant's counsel thus submitted that the appellant has been removed unlawfully from service and he prayed that he should be re-instated in service as he has been removed from service illegally by the respondents. Controverting these arguments, the learned District Attorney submitted that the appellant absented wilfully. No medical certificates were received by the respondents. As he did not join his new assignment with the Punjab Road Transport Board, hence he was correctly proceeded against by his employers. He did not respond to the show-cause notices in spite of the fact that these were published in the newspapers. In these show-cause notices pub--lished in the newspapers, penalty was clearly specified. He was also made known that if he did not respond to these notices, he would be proceeded ex parte. He was afforded the opportunity to be heard in person which he deliberately did not avail. There was no need to hold an enquiry keeping in view the facts of his wilful absence. Thus he was issued a show-cause notice correctly and properly, as laid down under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The learned District Attorney submitted that he was afforded all the oppor--tunities as per rules and action taken for removal from service was law--ful and appropriate as he was found guilty of misconduct being wilful absent from duty.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments put forth by counsel of both the parties and has also perused the record of this case. We agree with the learned District Attorney that the appellant absented wilfully. He did not care to return to duty. He was given proper notices at his given address through post as well as by sending a special messenger. He was also served with the notices through pro--clamation in the Press, but the appellant wilfully did not care to respond and continued to remain absent deliberately. We have also satisfied ourselves that proper formalities as required under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, were completed before he was removed from service. Thus, the impugned order passed are valid, lawful and the appellant has been afforded proper opportunities as required under the rules. We have also checked his previous service record. His increment due on 1st December, 1979 for one year was stopped without future effect by the Executive Engineer, 1st Medical Provincial Buildings Division, Lahore vide his office order No. 51, dated 31st July, 1979 as he was found guilty of misconduct and inefficiency. Thus, his previous service record is also unsatisfactory.
6. Keeping the above analysis in view, we hold that there is no merit in his appeal which is dismissed as such.
There will be no orders as to costs.