A13DUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Maqbool Alam, ex-Peon, Food Department has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore and the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Food Department, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 1st December, 1980 and final order dated 6th July, 1981 which was received by the appellant on 25th August, 1981 be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service with full benefits of pay and allowances.
3. The brief history of the case is that the appellant applied for leave from 5th October, 1980 to 9th October, 1980 which was not sanctioned by the competent authority. Finding that his 5 days leave from 5th October, 1980 to 9th October, 1980 has not been sanctioned, he sent another application for one day leave for 5th October from home on the grounds that he was ill but it was also not sanctioned. Thus, the appellant absented himself from duty. The appellant submitted a medical certi--ficate for his leave for the period from 22nd October, 1980 to 4th November, 1980 which was received in the Food Directorate on 3rd November, 1980 without any application for leave. However, in the meanwhile the appellant was proceeded against for his wilful absence. A show-cause notice was served. He was also called upon to present himself for duty through the press ; but he did not care for the same as well. Consequently his services were terminated due to his continuous absence from duty from 11th October, 1980 vide Director of Food order dated 1st December, 1980.
Another medical certificate was submitted by the appellant indicating the illness of his mother but this certificate was received after his services had already been terminated thus, the medical certificate was returned to the appellant in original. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Respondent No. 2 which was rejected being without any justification. Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the leave should have been sanctioned by the Respondent No. 1 as it was based on the medical certificate. Termination of the services of the appellant, on the basis of this absence was not correct. The appellant was not charge-sheeted properly and was also not proceeded under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 correctly. Thus the impugned orders are unlawful and are liable to be set aside. On the other hand the learned District Attorney controverted these arguments with the assistance of the Depart--ment representative and has argued that the appellant absented himself from duty wilfully. In spite of the fact that show-cause notice was served through post and also through the press ; but he did not care to respond. Thus, there was no other alternative but to terminate his services due to his continuous wilful absence. It was also vehemently argued on behalf of the respondents that the appellant was habitual of availing self-styled leave every now and then and his previous service record also has been unsatisfactory. It was also submitted that the services of the appellant were terminated after observing the required formalities under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments put forth by the counsel of the appellant, the learned District Attorney and have also perused the record of the appellant very carefully. We have also gone through the parawise comments on this appeal of the appellant, submitted by the Respondent No. 1. It is clear that formalities required under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, were observed and even notice through the press was also given but the appellant remained absent wilfully, did not care to return to his duty and respondents have correctly and lawfully terminated his services, under the circumstances, due to his continuous wilful absence. We have also satisfied ourselves that his previous service record is also not satisfactory. He was habitual absentee and went on self-styled leave whenever he wanted. His personal file shows that he was charge-sheeted in the year 1979 for enjoying self---sanctioned leave w.e.f. 20th June, 1979 to 1st August, 1979. This absence for the period from 20th June, 1979 to 1st August, 1979 was first treated as leave without pay and then extraordinary leave vide order No. E.O.P.A. 79 (Qasid), dated 19th September, 1979. Then he was again given leave from 2nd February, 1980 to 8th March, 1980 on medical grounds and was also strongly warned to avoid taking leave every now and then and on false pretexts vide Director Food order No. E.O.P.A./80, dated 9th June, 1980. Again he was treated absent from duty without leave for the period, 19th July, 1980 to 31st, July, 1980, 9th August, 1980 to 10th August, 1980, 15th August, 1980 to 18th August, 1980 and 23rd August, 1980 to 30th August, 1980 vide order No. E.O.P.A. Peon (Maqbul)/80, dated 8th September, 1980 and in the present case he again absented himself and never cared to return to duty. These some instances have been quoted, otherwise his file is full of such complaints made by his officers during his service regarding his wilful absence from duty without leave and regarded him a leave monger, applying leave on false pretext. We agree with the respondents that he was delinquent official' and habitual of availing self-sanctioned leave at his own whims.
6. Keeping the above analysis in view there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.
There will be no orders as to costs.