MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).-Hafeez Ullah Bhalliex-Junior Clerk has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Director, Housing and Physical Planning Circle, Lahore and the Director-General, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Punjab, Lahore as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 31-7-1978 passed by the respondent No. 1 and the orders dated 17-6-1980 and the final order dated 19-5-1982 be set aside and he be re.-instated into service with all back benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was transferred from the office of the Executive Engineer, Town Ship Division, Lahore to the office of the District Housing Officer (Old Colony), Lahore vide order dated 6-7-1977 passed by the Director, Housing and Physical Planning Circle, Lahore. The appellant was relieved from the office of the Executive Engineer, Town Ship Division were. f. 7-7-1977 (F. N.) but he did not join his new place of posting, in spite of lapse of more than 9 months so the Director issued a show-cause notice under Efficiency and Discipline: Rules, 1975 on 17-4-1978 and sent it to the appellant at his original available address by registered post. The letter was however, returned from Village Targa with the report of the Postal Authorities that the addressee did not reside there. Then a notice was published in a newspaper on 23-5-1978 informing the appellant that he was absent from duty since 7-7-1977 and he was called upon to respond to the notice otherwise it was threatened that ex parte action would be taken against him under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. Although this notice was published in the Press' the appellant did not respond. However, on 18-7-1978 after an absence of one year and 11 days the appellant submitted an application to the Director stating that he was ill were. f. 7-7-1977 to 17-7-1978 and as such he could not attend the office assigned to him. He also enclosed a fitness certificate issued by a Doctor certifying his sickness during the said period and declaring him fit simultaneously. We may observe here that this certificate was issued on 18-7-1978 by Doctor R. M. Akhtar, Physician and Surgeon, Regd. 419-D. In the certificate, the said Doctor has stated that the appellant remained under his treatment from 7-7-1977 to 17-7-1978 because of fever and heart palpitation and was declared fit to resume duty on the date of examination. From the perusal of the Medical Certificate one thing is clear that the said Doctor is not a qualified Physician and is nod a Medical Practitioner registered with the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council as required under the Act. His arrival report was not accepted and he was dismissed from service vide order dated 31-7-1978, passed by the Director. The appellant filed an appeal against the said order to the Director-General, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Punjab, Lahore on 2-10-1978. This appeal was rejected vide order dated 20-11-1978. The appellant again submitted a representation to the Director-General on 20-11- 1978. This representation was treated as a review petition by the Director-General and the comments were called from the Director, Housing and Physical Planning Circle and that a lot of correspondence between the two Officers are available on the record regarding the competency of the review petition before the Director General, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Punjab, Lahore. However, at one stage the Director-General had issued a letter to the Director asking him to accept the arrival report of the appellant and to charge-sheet him on the allegations but the Director did not accept the orders as legal and informed the Director-General that he had no jurisdiction to entertain a second review or revision petition against his orders. However, the revision/representation of the appellant was rejected vide order dated 17-6-1980 copy thereof was endorsed to appellant. The appellant feeling aggrieved against the finding of the Director and the Director-General filed an appeal before the Punjab Administrative Vigilance Commission who also called for the comments from the Department vide their notice dated 21st September, 1980. The Director General submitted the comments on 4-10-1980. However, there is nothing on the record to throw any light regarding the fate of the appeal filed by the appellant before the Vigilance Commission. Even the appellant has not disclosed about the filing of an appeal before the Vigilance Commission, although the respondents have produced documents to show it. The appellant then submitted another review representation to the Director-General on 11-2-1981 and 15-11-198:. He again submitted another representation on 20-11-1981. The representa--tions dated 15-11-1981 and 2G-12-1981 were rejected vide order dated 19-5-1982 by the Director-General, Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the parties. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the impugned orders are illegal and the appellant was not wilfully absent from the duty. In fact he was sick and be, had produced the medical certificate when he reported his arrival in his office on 18-7-13:8. He has also argued that the Director-General had passed the order vide his memo. Dated 29-3-1979 thereby it was conveyed to the Director that the appellant be charge-sheeted for his unauthorised absence from duty under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 and the cam be decided accordingly. He has submitted that this order of the Director-General passed on his review petition has not been implemented by the Director anti he has been seriously prejudiced, due to the non- compliance of these orders. Anticipating the arguments of the learned District Attorney regarding limitation, he has submitted that he had been filing representations review petitions bonafidely and tae appeal be treated as within time. Can the other hand the learned District Attorney has argued that the appeal is time-barred because the final order of the appellate authority wan parsed on 17-6-1980 and there was no provision under Rules to allow the appellant to fire any review petition before the raid authority. He has further submitted that the merely by filing of the repeated representations/review petitions, the appellant is not entitled to save the limitation. In this connection he has relied on the judgment in the case of Muhammad Ayub Khan, ex-Forester Case No. 105 of 1977. On merits it has been argued that the order passed by the Director-General so relied upon by the appellant was without jurisdiction because the Director-General could not exercise any power of review which was not conferred upon him under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. On merits it has been argued on behalf o: the respondents that the appellant is a malingerer.
He has also submitted that medical certificate submitted after the expiry of the period of absence of one year and 11 days is bogus and has not been issued by any authorised medical attendant.
4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record. First of all we will dispose of the plea of limitation so raised on behalf of the respondents. It is established from the record that the Director-General had dismissed the appeal of the appellant on 17-6-1980 which order was conveyed to the appellant who submitted an uncalled for review petition against the same. There is no provision in the Efficiency and Discipline Rules which confers powers of review on the Director-General of the Departmental Authorities to review the orders passed in appeal by it. The settled la is that the Departmental Authorities cannot exercise the powers of review unless and until these are specifically conferred upon them by a statute. Since there is no provision in the law authorising the Director.-General to review his order so the order contained in the memo. Dated 29-3-197 was without jurisdiction and was void. Even the orders passed by the Director-General in the subsequent representation/review representation filed by the appellant were not called for and the orders gassed thereon did not enlarge the time for filing the appeal. In this behalf we ean safely rely on our early judgment in Case No. 105 of 1977 (Muhammad Ayub Khan, ex-Forester v. D. F. O.) the operative part whereof is re--produced hereunder :-- "The appellant filed another review petition for which he has not been able to show us any provision of law or any authority. The consensus of judicial opinion is rather to the contrary. By filing repeatedly review petitions, appellant was not entitled to save limitation. Thus, we hold that the appeal filed before us on 21-6-1982 is barred by time."
Thus, we hold that the appeal is barred by time. Regarding merits of the case we have ourselves examined the medical certificate produced by the appellant. This medical certificate is retrospective in nature, having been issued on 18-7-1978 certifying the sickness of the appellant from 7-7-1977 to 17-7-1978. This certificate has neither been issued by a Medical Practitioner, duly registered with the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council as required under the law and is not an authorised medical attendant. This medical certificate is of no use for the appellant and we declare it as a bogus document. Had the appellant been really sick from some ailment he would definitely have informed the authorities about the same but he failed to do so till he reported for duty on 18-7-1978. Thus, we are satisfied that the appellant was not sick during the aforesaid period and he was wilfully absent from duty.
5. In view of the above analysis we hold that there are no merits in this appeal. As such the appeal is dismissed on merits as well as being barred by time. There will be no order as to costs.