' MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN (MEMBER).-The appellant then a Junior Auditor in the Office of the Accountant-General, Punjab, Lahore, obtained casual leave from 3rd June, 1975 to 7th June, 1975.
Since then he remained absent and resumed duty on 22nd September, 1977. The Additional Accountant-General, authorised officer in respect of the appellant, served a show-cause notice, dated 24th January, 1978 on the appellant requiring him to show-cause within fourteen days of the issue of the notice as to why any one or more of the penalties prescribed under rule 4 of the Government Servants (E & D) Rules, 1973, should not be imposed on him for absenting himself from duty wilfully for two years i,e, from 4th June, 1975 to 21st September, 1977. In reply thereof the appellant submitted that he fell ill and obtained four days' casual leave. He, however, was not able to resume duty on expiry of leave, as his illness prolonged and he remained under the treatment of Lady Medical Officer Incharge, Pakistan Audit Department Dispensary, who was the authorized Medical Attendant. The appellant submitted medical certificates issued from the said Medical Officer to the Assistant Accounts Officer Incharge, P.R. H Section. Since he did not receive any intimation from the office, he remained under the impression that his services had been dispensed with, therefore, he did not resume duty. He pleaded that he was not aware of the rules otherwise he would not have remained absent. He also pleaded that the penalty of dismissal from service would be too harsh for a young man of his age and prayed for sympathetic consideration of his case. The Accountant-General who was the authority in respect of the appellant, considered his reply unsatisfactory and ordered removal of the appellant from service vide his order, dated 12th February, 1979. The appellant appealed against his removal order to the Auditor-General of Pakistan which too was rejected as conveyed to the appellant vide letter, dated 1st January, 1980.
The appellant has challenged the impugned order of his removal from service by way of the present appeal.
2. We have heard Ch. Muhammad Saeed, Advocate, counsel for the appellant, and Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate, for the respondent-department. As stated above, the appellant absented himself from 3rd June 1975 to 21st September, 1977. It is, however, interesting to note that during this long period his absence remained unnoticed in the Department. Anyhow, on his resuming the duties the concerned departmental authorities became aware of the matter and initiated the proceedings against the appellant under the Government Servants (E & D) Rules, 1973. It has been contended on behalf of the Department that no medical certificate or any leave application was submitted by the appellant during the period of his absence. Only the photostat copies of the alleged medical certificates were submitted by him on 13th February, 1978 alongwith his reply to the show-cause notice. It has been alleged that all the medical certificates were obtained by the appellant at one time after the issuance of the show-cause notice to him. A contradictory statement was given by the appellant before the authorized officer on 11th November, 1978 that the reason for his absence was that he was running some business which did not prove profitable, therefore, he had to resume the duties.
3. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties and also perused the record of the case. The contention of the appellant is that he remained under the treatment of the Lady Medical Officer, Pakistan Audit Department Dispensary, and had been submitting the medical certificates from time to time. It may be mentioned that the photostat copies of the alleged medical certificates annexed with the memo. Of appeal are dated 9th June, 1975, 9th September, 1975, 4th December, 1975, 4th April, 1976, 8th September, 1976, 9th September, 1976, 6th December, 1976, 6th March, 1977 and 6th June, 1977. If these medical certificates are considered to be genuine then it follows that the appellant had been going to the said Medical Officer for examination.
Strangely enough, however, he did not bother to go to his office which is situated at the next door.
He also failed to name the channel through which he had sent the alleged medical certificates. It is again surprising that according to the medical certificates, he had been suffering from T.B. But he does not appear to have been advised or to have taken any treatment for the serious disease except that the Medical Officer who had issued the certificates had been advising him only rest sometimes for three months and sometimes for two months. Not only this, on our query, the appellant informed us during the course of hearing that no proper medical examination or required X-Ray was carried out. All this leads us to the conclusion that the plea of the appellant's illness is unbelievable and unsustainable. It follows that the appellant was rightly held guilty of the charge and justifiably punished by the authority.
4. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs,