ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Buta Khan, ex-Senior Clerk of Punjab Labour Court No. 4 has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad and the Secretary, Government of the Punjab Labour Department as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 1-10-1979 and 29-12-1981 passed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively be set aside being illegal and without lawful authority. The appellant be declared to be continuing in his service without any break want all back benefits.
3. Brief history of the case is that the appellant was working as Senior Clerk in Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad. The appellant went on self-granted leave on 1-4-1979 and absented himself from duty. The appellant issued a telegram dated 1-4-1979 requesting for granting of leave for 20 days.
The leave was rejected on 2-4-1979 as no medical certificate was produced and the appellant was informed accordingly. The appellant was charge sheeted on 17-4-19.'9. The appellant submitted the reply to the charge-sheet Enquiry was held On completion of the enquiry the appellant was served with a show-case notice. The reply to the show-cause notice was submitted by the appellant. The cause of wilful absence from duty of the appellant was considered by the authority.
Consequently the appellant was dismissed from service by respondent No. 1 vide his impugned order dated 1-10-1979. The appellant preferred an appeal to respondent No. 2 which too was dismissed by his order dated 29-12-1981. Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant fell ill and he was not able to attend his office from 1-4-1979 onward. As appellant had submitted the medical certificate of his illness for the period from 1-4-1979 to 10-8-1979, it should have been accepted by the respondent No: 1 as per rules and the appellant should have been allowed leave on medi--cal ground. Thus there is no misconduct on the part of the appellant. The appellant was also condemned without his association in the enquiry and was not given opportunities to defend himself. Thus the impugned order of his dismissal from service is also not lawful. He further submitted that the punishment given to him is also harsh. Controverting these arguments the learned District Attorney argued that as the appellant wilfully absented himself from duty Mnce he has been held guilty of misconduct correctly. He argued that the medical certificate given by Dr. Muhammad Nazir Chaudhry, Medical Officer, PRHC. Shahkot dated 6-8-1979 for the period from 1-4-1979 to 10-8-1979 is not worth consideration as this was given on 6-8-1979 were .f. 1-4-1979 after a lapse of 4 months. The appellant had remained absent wilfully without sanction of the leave and is guilty of misconduct.
5. The appellant was asked by us to produce a proof to show if leave was sanctioned to him on 31- 3-1979 as he had left his station of posting on 1-4-1979 but he failed to produce the same. The appellant admitted before us that he was under treatment of another doctor from 1-4-1979 to 30- 4-1979 namely Dr.. Muhammad Bashir, M.B., B.S. On questioning as to how did he receive the medical certificate from Dr Muhammad Nazir Chaudhry, Medical Officer, PRHC, Shahkot from 1-4- 1979 where ac--cording to his own statement, he was under the treatment of another Doctor from 1-4-1979 to 30-4-1979. To this he could not give any satisfactory reply. Thus the authenticity of the certificate given by Dr. Muhammad Nazir Chaudhry from 1-4-1979 is questionable.
6. We have given due consideration to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the appellant, the learned District Attorney and have also gone through the parawise comments given by the respondent 2.
We have also considered the oral statement of appellant made before us. From these facts it is clear that the appellant absented himself from duty from 1-4-1979 without any sanction of leave.
He could not also subs--tantiate that he had submitted the medical certificate earlier other than one submitted by him dated 6-8-1979, received on 15-8-1979 in office of Respondent No. 1. 'The charge-sheet was duly served upon him. It is clear from the record that though informed, he did not participate in the enquiry at his own accord and thus the enquiry was completed according to the rules. A show-cause notice dated 17-9-1979 was duly served on him along with a copy of the enquiry report. In reply to the show-cause notice the appellant replied, mentioning that the appellant had already given a notice of 15 days from 9-9-1979 for acceptance of his resignation.
The competent authority considered all the facts of the case and dismissed him from service were. f. 29-9-1979 due to wilful absence from duty from 1-4-1979 vide his order dated 1-(0-1979. Keeping the above facts in view we conclude that the appellant was properly and lawfully proceeded. He was afforded .Due opportunities to defend himself. As. The charge of wilfull absence was proved against the appellant, he has been rightly 'and lawfully dismissed from service.
7. In view of the above discussions we hold that, there is no 'merit in his appeal which is dismissed as such.
There will be no orders as to costs.