Mr. Ghulam Farid has made this appeal, wherein he has impleaded the Medical Superintendent, Nishtar Hospital, Multan as respondent. He has prayed for the cancellation of order dated 3rd January , 1982 of removal from service passed by the Deputy Medical Superintendent, Nishtar Hospital, Multan.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working in the Nishtar Hospital, Multan. The appellant, Mr. Ghulam Farid, went on leave without pay from 8th June, 1981 to 5th October , 1981 and then remained absent from duty from 6th October , 1981 onward. He was served with a notice dated 18th October , 1981 to report for duty within 15 days and also explain reasons for his wilful absence otherwise necessary action under rules would be taken. He, however , neither reported for duty nor submitted any explanation regarding his wilful absence. As there was no response from the appellant, he was given another opportunity and a notice was published in the Press directing him alongwith six other such officials to appear before Deputy Medical Superintendent, Nishtar Hospital, Multan, within 15 days of issue of the notice to explain the reasons of wilful absence otherwise they would be removed from service. This notice appeared in the Daily Nawa-i-W aqt dated 15th December 1981. However , neither he appeared before the Deputy Medical Superintendent nor rendered any explanation of wilful absence from duty. Thus he was removed from service w. e. f. 6th October , 1981 by the Deputy Medical Superintendent, Nishtar Hospital. Multan vide his office order No, PF/27-35/NH, dated 3rd January , 1982. He was informed accordingly on the address given by him in his Service Book in a registered cover . In the meanwhile a notice was received from the appellant under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance by the Medical Superintendent, Nishtar Hospital, Multan. The appellant was informed on 2nd February , 1982 that since he was in the service of Punjab Government and was subject to the provisions of Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 and the notice given under Industrial Relations Ordinance was not valid. The appellant went to the Labour Court, Multan against these orders of his removal from service and was directed on 31st May, 1982 by the Labour Court, Multan to approach the Service Tribunal for his grievance. However , he did not file any proper appeal with the appellate authority i,e, Medical Superintendent, Nishtar Hospital, Multan, before filing this appeal to this Tribunal. Hence this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was given leave without pay for the period from 8th June, 1981 to 5th October , 1981. On expiry of this leave, the appellant further applied for leave for the period from 6th October , 1981 to 6th January , 1982. In the meanwhile a notice was received from the Office of Deputy Medical Superintendent, Nishtar Hospital, Multan wherein the appellant was directed to report for duty within 15 days and it was also mentioned in the second para of this notice that Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad was allowed to continue work in the place of the appellan t who was on leave. Thus the appellant got the impression that this leave applied for, was granted, but on 16th January , 1982 when the appellant appeared for duty, it was made known to him that he had already been removed from service w. e. f. 3rd January , 1982 . Thus the appellant has been removed from service without observing the requirements of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules 1975. The appellant was not afforded opportunities to defend himself and ex parte decision has been taken against him which is unlawful. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was removed from service at the whim of the authority without observing the facts that the appe llant was on leave for the period he was alleged to have been absent from duty as in his place another official was temporarily allowed to work and adjusted. Thus the appellant did not remain absent from duty but remained on leave duly granted by the competent authority . The learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the impugned order , thus, be quashed and set aside as this has been passed without facts and valid reasons. Controverting these arguments the learned District Attorney took up the legal objection submitting that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred. The appellant did not make any appeal to the appellate authority as required under rules 13 and 14 of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The learned District Attorney referred to the copy of the appeal attached with the appeal, said to be submitted to Medical Superintendent, Nishtar Hospital Multan shows that this is not a proper appeal. If at all this is taken as an appeal, even then when appeal was submitted to the Medical Superintendent, Nishtar Hospital, Multan, the same was marked to the D. M. S. On 19th January , 1982 which the appellant kept with him and never passed on to the authority that is D. M. S. Nishtar Hospital, Multan. Thus it is clear that the appellant did not submit any appeal to the appellate authority against the decision of the D. M. S, Nishtar Hospital, Multan. Thus the appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal suffers from that lacuna. Even, if this is taken as an appeal then the appellant was required to come to this Tribunal within 30 days after expiry of 90 days of filing of this appeal. Thus the appellant should have come to this Tribunal by 18th May, 1982. But the appellant chose to go before the Labour Court unnecessarily and he came to this Tribunal on the direction of the Labour Court. His going to the Labour Court was uncalled for as he knew that the proper forum in his case, being a civil servant, was the Punjab Service Tribunal and not the Labour Court. The appellant has filed this appeal on 6th June, 1982, thus the appeal is time-barred and not maintainable. On merits the learned District Attorney submitted that this is a case of gross wilful absence. The appellant was granted leave without pay from 8th June, 1981 to 5th October , 1981. In spite of the fact he was admittedly served with a notice by D. M. S. Nishtar Hospital, Multan dated 18th October , 1981 wherein the appellant was asked to report for duty within 15 days of this notice, he did not join duty and remained absent wilfully . Again another clear cut notice was published in the daily Nawa-i-W aqt, Multan dated 15th December , 1981 wherein the appellant was directed to appear before the D. M. S. Nishtar Hospital, Muitan within 15 days of this notice otherwise he would be considered to have been removed from service. The appellant did not care for the same and it has been, thus, proved beyond doubt that he is guilty of misconduct for wilful absence. He was afforded opportunities to defend himself which he did not avail. Concluding his arguments the learned District Attorney submitted that the appellant has no case, the appeal being barred by time, non-maintainable and without any merits.
4. I have given my anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record very carefully . I find that the appeal is not maintainable as the appellant has failed to make proper appeal to the appellate authority as required under the rules 13 and 14 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline)
Rules, 1975. The appeal is also barred by time and the reasons given by the appellant in his application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condona tion of delay are not very sound and do not satisfy me for condonation of delay as requested by the appellant. On merits the case of the appellant is very weak. The appellant was granted leave from 8th June, 1981 to 5th October , 1981. Thereafter , he absented himself and did not care to return to his duty in spite of the fact he received a notice dated 18th October , 1981 issued by D. M. S. Nishtar Hospital, Multan for assuming of the duty and also anothe r notice was published in the Press for appearing before the authority , for explaining the reasons of his wilful absence. Thus, he was afforded opportunities, which he, knowingly , did not avail. It proves beyond doubts that the appellant remained absent from duty wilfully and he has been removed from service correctly and lawfully .
5. Keeping the above analysis in view , there is no force in this appeal which is dismissed as such.
' There will be no orders as to costs.