1. ' This application has been filed for the re-instatement with back benefits and the facts on which this prayer is founded in nutshell are that the applicant was working as Grade-III Officer at Deh Daro Sutha Branch Tando Allahyar. He fell ill with effect from 16-6-1982 and remained under the treatment of one Doctor Saeed Kazi of New Saeedabad. An intimation in regard to his absence and illness was sent by him by registered post on 21-9-1982 to Manager of his branch. This registered letter was said to have been refused by the Manager. He then repeated this letter on 19-10-1982 and sent the same to his Zonal Chief at Hyderabad but with no reply. He was charge-sheeted on 20-10-1982 and since this charge-sheet was sent to his residential address of Tando Allahyar, he could not receive the same because he was at that time residing at Hyderabad. An enquiry was then conducted and after final show-cause notice he was dismissed on 17-2-1983. He preferred an appeal on 26-2-1983 but the same was also rejected by the respondent on 28-4-1983. He accordingly approached this court after service of grievance notice, dated 19-5-1983, on the grounds that the charge-sheet was in violation of Standing Order 15(4); that he was not heard in person by the Appellate Authority and that the proceedings against him were illegal.
2. ' The respondent contested this application and in its reply statement dated 20-12-1983 pleaded that charge-sheet, dated 20-10-1982 was issued within one month of the notice of the misconduct committed by the applicant. It is also pleaded that the applicant had absconded from his duties from 16-6-1982 and sent his leave application only on 19-10-1982 but on false grounds. It is also the case of the respondent that despite the issuance of enquiry letter dated 8-11-1982 the applicant failed to participate therein and so the proceedings were rightly held ex parte and on the establishment of charge he was rightly dismissed. The maintainability of this application and the jurisdiction of the court was also pleaded.
3. ' The applicant examined him alone in support of his case while one Ashiq Hussain was examined on behalf of the respondent. After evidence I have heard Mr.Wasiullah Qureshi Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Muhammad Bashir Awan Advocate for respondent. I have also gone through the evidence on record.
4. ' The first submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the intimation sent by the applicant about his illness to his Manager on 21-9-1982 was refused to be received by the Manager and the applicant's further application for leave dated 19-10-1982 sent to the Zonal Chief Hyderabad though received by the respondent remained un replied. In view of this factual position learned counsel urged that the applicant has discharged his obligation by intimating the reasons of his absence and since the management did not bother to intimate the refusal of leave, the whole proceedings initiated at his back were void ab initio. Learned counsel's next submission is that according to pars 16 of Wage Commission Award of 1981, medical certificates submitted by the employees are to be accepted by the management unless the same is required to be verified through some Medical Board. In the instant case no such medical board was constituted and so the applicant should be deemed to have been absent on a legal ground. It is next contended that, in any case, the charge-sheet, dated 20-10-1982 is time-barred and so the dismissal on this charge-sheet is to be set aside. Learned counsel submits that the charges pertain to the months of March and June, 1982 and so whereas the charge-sheet is dated 20-10-1982 and so it is clearly barred by limitation. His further submission is that only photostat copies of the bank record have been produced in court by the respondent and since these are unauthenticated under the law, such documents have been ruled out of consideration. Finally it has been argued that the enquiry being ex parte without affording proper opportunity, the dismissal is not tenable in law.
5. ' Mr.Bashir Awan learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the so-called application, dated 21-9-1982 was not offered to the concerned Management and the endorsement of refusal was fake; there was no necessity of making any reply to the letter dated 19-10-1982 as before the receipt of letter date 19-10-1982 the applicant had already been charge-sheeted and if he had any reply to offer, he should have submitted his explanation which he failed to do so. His next submission is that the charge-sheet cannot be said to be time-barred inasmuch as the falsification etc. in the record or account came to the knowledge of the respondent only on 3-10- 1982 and further that the absence of the applicant from 16-6-1982 was a continuing absence and so the respondent had a recurring and continuing cause of action. As to the production of documents, learned counsel submits that under the provisions of Bankers Book Evidence Act, documents certified by Authority of the Bank would be deemed to be valid and can be tendered in evidence. It has also been contended that the provisions of Wage Commission Award would not be attracted in the instant case because of the admitted position that the applicant belonged to Officer cadre which category is regulated by the provisions of Pay Commission Reports. Finally, it is argued, it was for the applicant to have intimated the respondent about his where-about and since the respondent always sent the communications to his residential address as notified by him even in his application dated 19-10-1982, there is no occasion to send the letters to the applicant at any other address. Moreover, there is no denial on the part of the applicant that he did not have any knowledge about the letters sent to him by the respondent from time to time.
6. It is an admitted fact that the applicant remained absent from duty with effect from 16-6-1982 and did not report for duty even up to the date of his dismissal. It is also an undisputed position that the applicant did not ask for leave for any particular period but even in his letter dated 19-10-1982 he simply claimed leave from 16-6-1982 for an indefinite period. The medical certificate procured by him also does not speak of the period the applicant required for, bed rest. Admittedly the applicant did never intimate about his absence for ailment at any time at least before 21-9-1982 and there is no explanation for his more than 3-months un-notified absence from the side of the applicant. He did not dispute that the address of his residence with the management was Tando Allahyar. . He did not specifically plead that the charge-sheet, dated 20-10-1982 was not served on him though in para. 5 of his application he clearly admitted that it was rightly sent to his residential address. He nowhere stated that he did not receive the enquiry letter or the second show-cause notice but only pleaded that the enquiry report was not supplied alongwith the second show-cause notice. He admits the receipt of the dismissal order. All the communications made by the respondent were at his Tando Allahyar address and if some letters had been received by him, presumption would be that all the letters issued on that address were served on him particularly when the receipt has not been specifically denied. In any case, according to the applicant he was serving and residing at Tando Allahyar and since he fell ill he could not join the bank as he took the treatment at New Saeedabad and started residing at Hyderabad. This all is fantastic. The medical certificate on the face of it appears to be a maneouvered one. A person who is unable to approach the bank within one city due to his illness would now be able to travel about 90 miles for taking treatment from an ordinary private practitioner and would further be able to frequently contact his Doctor from Hyderabad which is again 50 miles from Hyderabad. This plea of the applicant is thus concocted one and cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination. Besides this factual aspect I would repeat that the applicant did not intimate the bank about his absence for more than 3 months and so the misconduct for his remaining absence for more than 10 days without any cause and intimation becomes established.
7. As to the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant about the limitation, suffice it to say that the absence is the continuing one and so the charge-sheet was well within time. The misconduct committed as in relation to the accounts also came to light on 3-10-1982 and on this score as well the charge-sheet cannot be said to be barred by limitation.
8. ' As to the vires to the enquiry proceedings, it is pointed out that the charge-sheet as well as enquiry letter were duly and legally served on the applicant but he never bothered to reply the charge-sheet or to face the enquiry, though, as mentioned above, if a person is able to travel frequently for more than 50 miles, he was expected to be present at his residential headquarter and thus the applicant could have conveniently participated in the enquiry. Since the enquiry was rightly held ex parte and since the allegations by the documentary evidence as also the admitted charge of absence were not rebutted by the applicant, the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be assailed in these proceedings. The applicant has also admitted having received the second show- cause notice. In his cross-examination he has also frankly admitted that he himself did not appear before the Appellate Authority in connection with his departmental appeal and so he cannot show his grievance now that he was condemned unheard. In fact, the conduct of the applicant clearly shows that he unauthoriseably left the bank without any legal justification because he had committed serious illegalities in the accounts of the bank and so he was rightly dismissed from service. He cannot take advantage of his misconduct nor he can claim service as of right without any work and without complying with the legal provision.
9. ' In the result, I do not find any substance in this application under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 and so this application is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.