S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). -Saeed Ahmad Qureshi ex-Sub-Divisional Clerk has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintending Engineer, Provincial Buildings Circle, Bahawalpur and the Chief Engineer, Punjab, Buildings Department, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order dated 23-8-1979 passed by respondent No 1 and the order dated 31-1-1982, passed by respondent No. 2, be set aside and -he be declared to be continued in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant proceeded on two days casual leave from 18-4-1977 to 19-4-1977 with permission of station leave on 17-4-1977, but he remained on leave up to 9-5- 1977, which was sanctioned vide Superintending Engineer Provincial Buildings Circle, Bahawdlpur vide Order No. 127/E dated 29-6-1977. The appellant remained on further leave for two months and 24 days from 11-7-1977 to 4-10-1977 on private affairs which was sanctioned by Superintending Engineering Pro--vincial Buildings. Circle Bahawalpur vide Order No. 130/E dated 8-10-1977. The appellant was due to resume duty on 5-10-1977 but he applied for extension of leave from 5-10- 1977 to 19-11-1977 and further up to 10-1-1978 which was also sanctioned on medical grounds vide Superintending Engineer, Provincial Buildings Circle, Bahawalpur Office Order No. 225/E dated 29- 12-1977. On expiry of the leave he did not resume duty and applied for further extension of leave from I1-1-1978 to 21-2-1978 on medical grounds by producing the medical certificate of private Doctor as usual. This leave was not recommended for sanction by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Building Division, Eahawalnagar. The appellant was directed vide registered letter No. 6592 dated 8-3-1978 to appear before the Medical Superintendent B. V. Hospital, Bahawalpur for medical examination and to produce medical certificate in support of his illness but no response was made by the appellant. In the meantime the appellant applied for further extension of leave from 22-2-1978 to 19-4-1978 and up to 26-4-1978. This leave from 11-1-1978 to 26-4-1978 was sanctioned on medical grounds on half average pay vide Superintending Engineer Provincial Buildings Circle, Bahawalpur. Later on the appellant was attached to Provincial Buildings Division, Bahawalpur temporarily from 27-4-1978 to 12-10-1978, and was directed to resume duty at his original place of posting i.e. Provincial Buildings Sub-Division, Fortabbas. The appellant was relieved by the X. E. N. Provincial Division, Bahawalpur on 12-10-1978, but he reported his arrival in Provincial Building Sub-Division Fortabbas on 1-11-1978 instead of 14-10-1978 as 13-10-1978 was Friday thereby absenting himself for 18 days from duty without permission. He did not resume duty on 4-11-1978 but applied for leave from 3-11-1978 to 14-12-1978, on medical grounds, by producing medical certificate of private practitioner. The appellant further applied for leave for the period from 15-12- 1978 to 8-2-1979, 9-2-1979 to 8-3-1979, 10-3-1979 to 8-4-1979 and 9-4-1979 to 14-4-1979. The appellant was asked time and again by the Sub-Divisional Officer/Executive Engineer, concerned to appear before the Medical Superintendent, B. V. Hospital, Bahawalpur and to produce medical certificate in support of his illness as required under rule 8.8 of C. S. R., Vol. 1, Part I read with Note 1 but he did not comply with the orders of the superiors although he was clearly told by the X E N, Provincial Buildings Division, Babawalnagar that he would face the consequences for not complying with the instructions of the Department regarding medical check up in the Government Hospital. The appellant again resumed his duty on 15-4-1979 and afterward left the office once again on 26-4-1979, without permission and remained absent from duty up to 4-5-1979. The appellant had been applying for extension of leave up to 10-8-1979 and further upto 19-8-1979. He was issued one week notice to resume duty by the X E N, Provincial Buildings Division, Bahawalnagar. Final show-cause notice was issued through Press but he failed to respond the same. Ultimate action was taken against him and his services were terminated after observing the required formalities. The appellant filed appeal before respondent No. 2, which was rejected. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. The main objection taken by the appellant---s counsel on behalf of the appellant is that no regular enquiry was conducted in this case and the appellant was not allowed the opportunity to defend himself. He has complained the step-motherly treatment of the Department against the appellant which according to the learned counsel the appellant was an ill person and has been dismissed from service in arbitrary manner. On the other hand learned D. A. Has adopted the parawise comments of the respondents.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced and have gone through the history of the case as given in detail in the parawise comments of the respondents, and we do not find any reason to hold that the appellant was met out with step-motherly treatment by the Department. He was accommodated all along and for pretty long time but once it became clear to the respondents by the malingering attitude of the appellant that he was reluctant to get himself medically examined by the Medical Superintendent, B. V. Hospital, Bahawalpur, the respondent had no alternative but to proceed against him on the documentary evidence. It is also on the record that the appellant himself chose to remain absent during this long period and despite a show- cause notice issued in the Press he refrained to associate himself in the inquiry or to defend himself by personally appearing before the competent authority. In these circumstances we are afraid that no exception can be taken to the impugned orders passed in this case keeping in view the long history of absence from duty by the appellant on one pretext to another and ultimately showing lame excuses of illness to join duty despite a notice in the Press.
6. In view of the above we do not find any merits in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.
However, there will be no order as to costs.