' Muhammad Murtaza has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, and the Deputy Commissioner, Multan, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that impugned orders, dated 24th January, 1983 as well as 8th January, 1984 passed by the respondents be set aside and he may be reinstated in service with full back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 9th April, 1982, the appellant submitted an application to Naib- Tehsildar (Recovery) Lodhran of his Office Incharge for grant of leave from 10th April, 1982 to 12th April, 1982 on medical grounds. His Officer Incharge wrote an order on the application directing him to furnish a medical certificate from the authorised medical attendant as laid down in rule 35(3) of the Revised Leave Rules, 1981. Instead of furnishing the medical certificate, he left the said application in the office room of his Officer Incharge and left the Headquarter on the same day without even obtaining station leave. The Officer Incharge of the appellant sent a report through the Assistant Commissioner, Lodhran that he was absent since 9th April, 1982 and subsequently the Assistant Commissioner, Lodhran on 1st July, 1982 informed the office of respondent No, 2 that had not joined his duty. Thereafter, Naib-Tehsildar (Recovery) Lodhran on 4th September, 1982 again informed that he was still absent from his duties. Accordingly the appellant was served with a charge-sheet to which he submitted his written explanation. The respondent No, 2 appointed Mr. Rahim Bakhsh Fayyaz, Resident Magistrate, Lodhran as Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry and submitted his report to respondent No, 2, on 29th November, 1982. He reported that the appellant appeared before him on 27th November, 1982 and did not contradict the aforesaid allegation and himself admitted in his statement that in fact he remained absent from duty during the above period due to his prolonged illness. He was served with a final show-cause notice to which he submitted his reply and was heard in person. The appellant was removed from service vide order, dated 24th January, 1983. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the respondent No, 1, who rejected the same by his order dated 8th January, 1984. Hence this appeal.
4. I 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.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the respondents were not maintainable in law on the ground that these orders have been passed on the basis of inquiry report of the Resident Magistrate Lodhran who dealt with the matter summarily and not cared to issue a notice to the appellant to attend the proceedings before him. It has been contended that as a matter of fact the appellant was persuaded upon by Naib-Tehsildar Lodhran to sign a statement which was obtained from the appellant by a person in authority to whom the appellant immediately was subordinate. It has been further argued that the overs of the respondents were manifestly perverse due to the reason that the appellant had never absented himself and was attending Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Lodhran Branch, which was the place of duty of the appellant. It has been submitted that both the respondents have failed to call the Manager of the said Bank. According to the learned counsel, the funny thing is that the appellant was receiving pay for period for which he was considered as absent.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Deputy Commissioner, Multan, and has stoutly defended the judgments of both the Deputy Commissioner as well as of the learned Commissioner, Multan, and submitted that the appeal be dismissed.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have gone through the detailed judgment of Mian Faiz Karim, Deputy Commissioner, Multan, as well as Mr. Faridud Din Ahmad, Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan and find that the learned Deputy Commissioner has only relied on the statement of the appellant who has admitted his absence from duty during the said period due to his prolonged illness. It has been indicated that the appellant had failed to produce any medical certificate in support of his ailment. It has been observed by him that in the circumstances in view of his admission, it was not necessary to record any further evidence. He has also relied on the report of the Enquiry Officer Mr. Rahim Bakhsh Fayyaz, R. M., Lodhran, who also held the appellant guilty on the same ground. Similarly the learned Commissioner while sitting in appeal had taken all these facts into consideration and also the plea of the appellant that he made confession under duress, he rejected the same on the ground that the appellant had himself confessed his absence from duty and thus, according to the learned Commissioner, has been conceded by the appellant in different words.
8 The only question for determination in this case would be whether the appellant was absent from duty or not and if he was so, whether he was unable to move about to get himself medically examined by the Government Medical Officer. It has also to be examined that his earlier stand was incorrect and the statement so given by him was result of duress and actually he performed the duties with the Agricultural Development Bank or not. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellant bad submitted any medical certificate issued by the authorised Medical Officer and his plea of illness was hardly a plea which could confine him to bed and would not allow him to move about. If he was a little ill, there was nothing to prevent him to appear before the Medical Officer when he was directed by his superior to do so. His change of plea also goes against him when we view the same in the presence of his confessional statement. The plea of presence for all the time in the office of the Agricultural Development Bank shifted this onus heavily to his side and it would be fair for him to produce the Manager of the Agricultural Development Bank to come and state on oath that the appellant was working during this period in his office. The very blowing hot and cold in the same breath reflects on the efficiency of his defence and the learned Deputy Commissioner as well as the learned Commissioner were fully justified to reject his wavering stand.
The fact of the matter is that the appellant was absent from duty for about full five months and such like misconduct has been visited with major penalty of removal from service.
9. The result is, I do not find any force in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.