' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Dr. Munir-ud-Din has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against his removal by the Governor of Punjab vide his order, dated 22nd October, 1983. He has impleaded the Punjab Province through the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Health Department, Lahore, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order 22nd October; 1983 be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was granted 75 days leave from the date of availing.
He proceeded on leave on 12th December, 1981. He applied for 65 days extension in leave from 25th February, 1982 to 30th April, 1982. Due to shortage of Doctors his request was not acceded to and he was directed to resume duty but he refused to accept the letter. Instead of joining the duty he again applied for extension of 365 days extraordinary leave upto 1st May, 1983. He was again directed to resume duty by the Medical Superintendent, District Headquarters Hospital, Sahiwal but he failed to comply with the same, in this way he absented himself from duty w. e. f. 25th February, 1982.
' A show-cause notice was issued to him under rule 6(3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, to which the appellant filed his reply. However, Governor of the Punjab was pleased to remove him from service on account of wilful absence from duty from 25th February, 1982. This order was passed by the Chief Secretary Punjab on behalf of the Governor of Punjab. He filed review petition to the Governor which remained unanswered. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record relevant to this case.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as the appellant's father Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, M. O. (Retd.) and his mother sufferred from various diseases therefore, in order to look after her he applied for 75 days which was duly granted to him by the Director, Health Services, Lahore.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant, as the condition of his mother further deteriorated, he applied for 65 days more and also grant of 365 days extraordinary leave. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid stress on the fact that as Deputy Director Health Services, Multan, did not forward his leave application to the Director Health Services which was the competent authority, he was within his rights to presume that the said leave had been so granted to him, this is why he did not join the duty. It has been further urged that during personal hearing before the Chief Secretary the appellant had satisfied him but despite' that he was removed from service.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that leave is integral part of service conditions, therefore once, the leave is applied by a civil servant and extension no reply to the same is received by him, it would be presumed that he had been granted such leave. In the end he has recounted his seven years service which according to him was unblemished.
6. We have examined the comments submitted by the Department and find that leave could only be granted keeping in view the administrative convenience. In the present case the extension of leave was refused by the Deputy Director, Health Services, Multan Division, Multan and decision was conveyed to him by the Medical Superintendent, District Headquarters Hospital, Sabiwal, firstly through a peon and secondly through a Registered A. D. Letter but the appellant refused to receive the communication at both the occasions. We have also perused the report of the Medical Superintendent District Headquarters, Hospital, Sahiwal, which is placed at Annexure with the reply of the respondent. The fact of the matter is that Government servants are not entitled to leave as of right, as it is entirely within the discretion of sanctioning authority either to refuse or to sanction leave. There is no doubt about the settled principle of law that a civil servant concerned if he remains away base absence is treated as unauthorised and is not entitled to pay for that period.
Rules further provide certain disciplinary action against him, as wilful absence from duty amounts to misconduct. We have no hesitation to repel the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that no civil servant can proceed on leave on the assumption that the leave would be sanctioned to him. For this we rely on the instructions contained in the S& G A I Department's letter No, SOIV (S & G A D) 2-134/60, dated 28th December, 1964 which the respondent has placed on record as Annnexure 'B'.
7. In the light of the above we do not find any force in this appeal' which is dismissed in limine.