S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Mir Nazir Ahmad has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 against the impugned order dated 27-12-1980 and 1-1-1981, of the Respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in service with all back 'benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant applied for leave ex-Pak. For a period of four months from 4-10-1976 to 3-2- 1977 which was duly sanctioned. He applied for extension in leave ex- Pakistan from Jeddah--Saudi Arabia firstly vide his application dated 21-1-1977 and 28-3-1977, for a further period from 28-3-1977 to 3-4-1977 and secondly from 4-4-1977 to 3-10-1977, which was duly sanctioned by the respondent vide his order dated 27-4-1977 and 23-10-1977. His sanctioned leave expired on 3-10-1977. The appellant did not report for duty and applied for further extension which was not allowed to him. Applications for extension for leave up to 3-2-1980 were received but the applications for leave from 4-2-1980 to 3-2-1981 were not received and the appellant was declared as an absconder and disciplinary action under E & D Rules was instituted against him. A show- cause notice was published in the Pakistan Times dated 17-11-1980, in which the appellant was asked to show-cause within 14 days as to why one or more major penalties prescribed under E & D Rules, 1975, may not be imposed upon him. He was told to express his wish if he wanted to he heard in person in this regard. As no reply was received he was dismissed from service vide order dated 1-1-1981. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that order of dismissal of the appellant from service was passed perfunctorily and mechanically without application of slightest mind to aspects of factual and legal position of the case. With regard to the legal position of the case, it has been submitted that the respondent should have initiated a regular enquiry against the appellant and should not have dis--missed him by dispensing with the same. He has also assailed the observa--tion of the respondent while rejecting his revision petition by submitting that the same were unwarranted.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the contention so raised before us and find that the appellant went on leave ex-Pakistan only to visit the holy shrines in Middle East countries and got it extended the same on one pretext or another as he had some extra motives to stay there. He was not a deputationist and thus left no address with the respondent so as to contact him. He was called upon a number of times to report for duty and even a recourse to the newspapers did not bring him back. The advertisement in Pakistan Times dated 17-11-1980, is a material evidence in this behalf. The Department had no alternative but to dismiss him from service as no body can be allowed to stay away from duty at his own whim and fancy and the come back to the Department, and claim the service which he had so grossly neglected.
6. In view of the above" analysis we do not find any flaw in the procedure so adopted by the competent authority against the appellant, therefore, to dismiss the appeal as being without any merits. However, there will be no order as to costs.