ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). -Latif-ur-Rehman's, ex-Officer Incharge, Livestock Experiment Station Chak Katora, Tehsil Hasilpur, District Bahawalpur has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Lahore as respondent.
2. By virtue .Of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the order dated 11-2-1982 , passed by the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Lahore whereby the appellant was removed from service be set aside and he be directed to be re- instated in service with all consequential benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Mr. Latif-ur-Rehman's, Officer Incharge, Livestock Experiment Station Chak Katora Bahawalpur District was granted 120 days ex-Pakistan leave vide order dated 10th September, 1979 by Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Livestock, Fisheries and Dairy Development Department, Lahore. While abroad the appellant submitted another application requesting for grant of 360 days earned leave on half pay were. f. 14-1-1980. The Director, Livestock Farms, Punjab, Lahore vide his letter dated 27-I-1980, recommended the case of the appellant for grant of 360 days ex-Pakistan leave to the appellant. But the same was not accepted and agreed upon by the Secretary, Govern--ment of the Punjab, Livestock and Dairy Development Department and was rejected vide his order dated 1-3-1980. On receipt of rejection of the leave, the appellant submitted a detailed reply to the respondent and again requested that 360 days leave on half pay were. f. 14-1-1980 as applied for in the original application dated 4-1-1980 he granted but his this request was also not accepted. Later on the respondent issued a notice to the appellant through publication in Pakistan Times dated 13-9-19$0, directing him to report for duty to Government within 7 days of publication of the notice and also to state why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his wilful absence from duty. The appellant did not resume duty. However, he sent an application dated 16-1-1981 to the respondent, explaining that lie would not be able to resume duty due to his family circumstances and requested for sympathetic consideration of his case- As the appellant did not join duty, could not be heard in person, as he did not respond to the calls of the respondent, hence the appellant was removed from service were. f. 14-I-1980 vide 9rder dated 11th February, 1982 of the respondent, on account of wilful absence from duty. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant had long service of 22 years' in the Department, had earned promotion from Veterinatry ,Assistant Surgeon to that of N. P. S. 18 due to his good service record and excellent per--formance in the Department and went abroad on leave ex-Pakistan for 120 days duly sanctioned by the respondent in September, 1979. Keeping in view the length of the service, the appellant had earned long leave at his credit and he could be granted extension in leave as a right by the respondent. While the appellant was abroad his family circumstances took such a turn that it was not possible for him to return to Pakistan without settling his family affairs. Thus, the appellant made requests time and again for the sanction of the extension of the leave which merited sanction by the respondent on the reason and justification given by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that this was not a case of wilful absence but actually it was misconception and misunderstanding as the appellant was under the impression that his request for extension in leave was under consideration and as his Director had recommended the same to the respondent, issue of the sanction by him was just a formality. He further argued that the appellant has also been prejudiced in the matter. He was proceeded ex parte. He was not given an opportunity to defend himself. He was also not given a personal bearing. Before passing the impugned order the respondent, however, did not bother to see that when the appellant was out of Pakistan, how a notice issued in the local Press could be served or brought to the notice of the appellant who was not in the country. Concluding his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that previous excellent service record, length of the service of the appellant, had also not been, kept in view while the penalty was imposed on the appellant. Thus, the appellant has been treated indiscriminately, unlawfully and he prayed for quashing of the impugned order passed illegally.
Controverting these arguments the learned District Attorney submitted that the appellant went abroad after getting the sanction of the leave for 120 days. He was a senior officer of the Department, he knew the rules and regulations and it was in his knowledge that the leave could not be presumed and it was necessary for him to get the leave sanctioned in time otherwise he was required to join his duty on expiry of his leave. In spite of the fact that extension in leave asked by him was not granted and he was properly informed, even then he did not care to join his duty on the calls of the Department and thus, absented himself wilfully. The charge of misconduct, undoubtedly, stood proved against the appellant. Concluding his arguments the learned District Attorney submitted that the appellant has thus been punished correctly and lawfully.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case. It is a fact that the appellant had long service of 22 years when he went on leave ex-Pakistan and the extension in leave was also recommended by his Director to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Livestock and Dairy Development Department which was not sanctioned by him. We have also satisfied ourselves that the appellant was also not given a chance to clear his position and opportunity of personal hearing was also not afforded to the appellant. The appellant kept on making the requests for extension in his leave, explaining his inability to join duty due to his family circumstances. Keeping in view, the length of service of the appellant and leave earned by him, his family circumstances, the extension of the leave could have been sympathetically considered by the respondent, specially when the same was recommended by the Director, Livestock Farms, Punjab, Lahore. However, the appellant is also at fault to some extent that he could not presume and anticipate extension in leave at his own and he should have Joined back his duty when he was asked by the Department to do so and thus he cannot be absolved totally from the charge against him. Keeping the long service of the appellant in view, the facts and circumstances of this case, we consider that the punishment so awarded to the appellant is too harsh and not in consonance with the guilt of the appellant. We, also, feel that if the-appellant would have been given an opportunity of personal hearing by the respondent and his view points would have been considered, the decision, in imposing the penalty by the respondent to the appellant, would have been different.
6. Keeping the above analysis in view, we direct that penalty imposed in the impugned order No. USE-II-19-21/79, dated 11-2-1982 be modified to "compulsory retirement" instead of "removal from service", The appeal of the appellant is accepted to the extent mentioned above.
There will be no order as the costs