ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). -Rehmat Masih, Ex-Junior Clerk, Deputy Commissioner's Office, Sahiwal has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded Province of Punjab, through Collector, Sahiwal Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab. Lahore, Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan and Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal as respondents.
2. He has prayed that the impugned orders of the Board of Revenue, Commissioner, Multan Division and Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal be set aside and the appellant be restored to service were. f.
19th March, 1980 and his period of stay abroad be directed to be treated on duty.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Rehmat Masih when working as Junior Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal was granted four months' ex-Pakistan leave on 23rd June, 1977 for visit to Italy and other holy places. He availed this leave with effect from 4th July, 1977.
Subsequently, the leave was extended upto 3rd November, 1978 on his request. He applied for further extension for six months' leave which was rejected and an intimation sent to him through his were vide Deputy Commissioner's Office Memo. No. 9227-M/BC, dated 8th November, 1978. The appellant had mentioned in his applica--tion that intimation about the order be sent to his were.
He did not resume duty. As such a notice was served on him -vide Deputy Commis--sioner's office No. 323-M/BC, dated 7th February, 1979, directing him to resume duty within a month and explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him be awarding punishment on account of wilful absence from duty and misconduct. He did not resume duty. The appellant was required to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal on 12th February, -1979 personally. The appellant did not appear and also did not submit any reply to the notice served upon him. As the appellant was found absent from duty- were. f. 4th November, 1978 onward, he was- found guilty of wilful absence and misconduct. His services were dispensed with on 12th March, 1979. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Multan Division, which was rejected vide his order dated 16th June, 1980. A revision petition was made before the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore which was also dismissed vide his order dated 14th April, 1981. Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant went on ex-Pakistan leave for four months duly sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal which was extended upto 3rd November, 1978.. The appellant was abroad visiting holy places, ran out of money and could not return to Pakistan earlier. Thus, he was forced to remain abroad as the things were not under his control and he was forced by the circumstances not to return to Pakistan earlier than 19th March, 1980. Under the circumstances the period of his absence abroad be treated on duty or on leave as permissible under Government Notification No. SE-III-35/76, dated 5th November, 1978. According to para. 9 of this Notification the leave to the appellant could be extended up to five years.
Furthermore, the appellant was not given due opportunity to defend himself and was condemned unheard. Keeping the above facts in view the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the period of absence treated so, by the respondent No, 4, be allowed as leave and the appellant be restored to service. Controverting these arguments, the learned District Attorney submitted that the appellant was granted four months' leave ex-Pakistan. He should have returned back after availing of that leave but he stayed abroad to earn lucrative money and stayed there at his sweet will. His leave was further extended upto 3rd November, 1978, and thus the appellant was given sufcient time to return to Pakistan after overcoming his problems and difficulties if any. But the appellant chose to stay abroad at his will to have lucrative earning abroad. He, thus absented wilfully. He had requested the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwat that alt the correspondence be done with him through his were. Thus, the show-cause notice was served properly through his were who did inform him but the appellant ignored the same knowingly. Thus the opportunity required has been provided to the appellant to defend him--self. Furthermore, the learned District Attorney submitted that no reliance can .Be made on the Government Notification dated 5th November, 1978 referred to by the appellant's counsel because he was allowed leave upto 3rd November, 1979. He remained absent from duty from 4th November, 1978, onward when the Notification is dated 5 November, 1978. Thus, Notification cannot have any retrospective effect and the appellant cannot claim any concession on its basis. All these facts of the case show that he wilfully remained absent from duty, is guilty of misconduct and his services were dispensed with correctly and lawfully.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have consulted the record as well. We agree with the District Attorney that there is no merit in the case of the appellant.
The appellant was granted four months' ex-Pakistan leave. He should have returned to Pakistan after expiry of this leave ; but he did not bother to do so. The respondent No. 4 was liberal to allow him extension of the leave up-till 3rd November, 1978 ; but even then, the appellant did not care to return to Pakistan. He did not join his duty even after service of the show---cause notice. He also did not bother to reply to the show-cause notice and appear for personal hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal. We are satisfied that he was provided due opportunities but he did not avail there to defend himself. Thus he has been proceeded against properly. Thus the charge of wilful absence from duty is stood proved against him. The Government Notification dated 5th November, 1978, on which the appellant has relied, is not applicable to his case as it cannot operate retrospectively and its conditions were not fulfilled by the appellant.
6. Keeping the above facts in view, we hold that there is no merit in thus appeal which is dismissed as such. There will be no order as to costs. th