1. MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).-The appellant, an Assistant Professor of Paediatrics has preferred this appeal under section 4 of Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 against an order of removal from service passed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Sind by an order, dated 13th March, 1982.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant was originally appointed as ad hoc Assistant Professor Paediatrics in 1975 and his appoint--ment was regularised in 1978. The appellant was first posted at Chandka Medical College, Larkana. After about 5 years on 18-10-1980 he was transferred to Nawabshah Medical College and relieved on 18-10-1980 to join his new post. The appellant appeared before the Principal, Nawabshah Medical College on 23-10-1980 and submitted a report that he was assuming the duty as Assistant Professor in the forenoon. However, with this report he also made an application to the Principal for grant of casual leave from .25-10-1980 to 3-11-1980.
3. The Principal passed the orders allow--ing the appellant the desired leave for 10 days. The appellant, however, did not come back to actually resume the duties as Assistant Professor at Nawabshah and he sent an application for extension of this leave by 4 months from 4-11-1980 to 3- 3-1981. This leave was not sanctioned. It was not recommended to the Government and the Government in the Health Department declined to grant such leave. The appellant, on being informed about the rejection of leave application, did not report for duty at Nawabshah. Ultimately, he came to Nawabshah to resume on 5-3-1981. On 7-3-1981 after two days he again applied for casual leave but be was asked to work at least for two weeks before any such leave could be granted to him. On 21-3-1981 the appellant left an application for one month's leave and again disappeared from the Medical College. On 21-4-1981 he sent another application for extension of leave by one month. Meanwhile, the appellant was advised to appear before the then Secretary Health on 22-E-1981. He was heard in person by the Secretary Health and he was advised to rejoin his duties at Nawabshah. He accordingly appeared before the Principal at Nawabshah on 12-9-1981 and offered to work, in case he was given the facility of one lecture per week on Thursdays only. The appellant was asked that he should give an undertaking to stay in Nawabshah and look after the teaching of the students and also attend to the patients and children ward and the O. P. D. The appellant showed his inability to give any such undertaking. Thus the appellant, on transfer from Larkana, practically avoided to submit to the orders of transfer and did trot perform his duties beyond submitting his charge report on paper and applying for leave and sending his leave application one after the other, though, they were not being granted.
4. Meanwhile, a show-cause notice, dated 26th February, 1981 was for--warded to the appellant at his residential address at Larkana. The notice was in respect of his acts of misconduct and indiscipline by failing to join at Nawabshah and applying for leave which ,was not- being sanctioned and, therefore, absenting himself from duty. In reply to the show-cause notice the appellant wrote to the Secretary, Health Department that he had taken exception with regard to 'misconduct and corruption', used in the show-cause notice and he, therefore, reserved his right tp take legal action for those uncalled for remarks contained in the notice.
5. The appellant was then directed to appear before the Chief Secretary for personal hearing.
6. Thereafter an order was passed imposing major penalty of removal from Government service upon the appellant and treat--ing the period of absence, from 18-10-1980 until the date of the order, . As extraordinary leave without pay.
7. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant has first argued that the Principal, Nawabshah Medical College has suppressed the fact of the appellant having taken over charge at Nawabshah on 23rd October, 1980. That, if this fact had been known to the authorities, no show-cause notice would have been issued and no penalty of removal from service would have been imposed.
8. It has, on the other hand, been pointed out by the A. A..-G. That merely reporting for duty on a piece of paper and then proceeding on casual leave and thereafter absenting himself without leave would not amount to taking over charge at a teaching institution. The appellant did not even stay for a day and he did not submit the charge report in the usual form in quadruplicate. He was required to take over charge of the children ward, the O. P. D. And also to conduct lecture in class. It could not, therefore, be said that he had taken over his duties as an Assistant Professor. Even after he was directed by the Health Secretary on 22-8-1981 to join his duties at Nawabshah, he appeared before the Principal and dic--tated his own terms that he would come only once a week to deliver lecture.
9. The Principal asked him to give an undertaking in writing that he would stay in Nawabshah and attend his duties in the ward and in the O. P. D. Etc. But he declined. The Principal accordingly did not entrust the charge to him.
10. It is, therefore, clear from the facts appearing on record that the appellant after getting his orders of transfer avoided the posting at Nawabshah and did not comply with the directions of the Principal. On the contrary, he dictated his own terms and offered to come to Nawabshah only once week for lecture. This conduct clearly showed that he had no mind to continue his service as an Assistant Professor. It is also clear that he absented himself from duty without leave as he continued to remain away from Nawabshah even after he was informed that the leave asked for had' not been granted to him. His conduct in thus absenting himself without leave, dictating his own terms to the Principal, and giving the reply to the show-cause notice in an insolent manner, would clearly show that the appellant had no intention to continue in Government service. The Department had, therefore, no option but to terminate his service after getting approval from the Chief Secretary. We accordingly find no ground for interference even in respect of the punishment imposed, as the appellant could not be made to work under compulsion.