S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN CHAIRMAN).--Khadim Hussain Khalid, Assistant Director, Swedish Pakistan Institute of Technology, Gujrat and Section Officer, Government of the Punjab, Education Deaprtment, Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and the Director of Technical Education, Punjab, 4/13, Lytton Road, Lahore as respondents.
2. The appeal is directed against the orders, dated 24-3-1979 and 22-5-1982 of respondent No. 1 refusing to grant approval to the appellant's services abroad in Saudi Arabia with effect from 4-10- 1977 till the completion of his contractual period as deputation in terms of the Government of the Punjab, Services and General Administration Department Policy Circular letter, dated 8-8-1978, and to allow the appellant to join his post in his parent department.
3. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the orders, dated 24-3-1979 and 22-5-1982, of the respondents refusing to sanction the appellant's service abroad from 4-10-1977 onward on deputation be declared as illegal, against law and services and be set aside, and also respondents be directed to regularise the aforesaid period and to allow the appellant to join his post in his parent department with effect from the date he has reported for duty according to law, rules and in terms of the policy circular of the Government of the Punjab, Services, General Administration Department.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while he was working in Grade-17, he addressed an application to the Vice-Chancellor, King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, which according to him was duly forwarded and recommended by the Punjab Government for consideration of his employment in the said University. The appellant was already on leave uptill 3-9-1977, and also applied further leave ex-Pakistan for a period of one year w.e.f. 4-9-1977. The appellant was called for interview by the King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, and was appointed as Administrative Secretary, College of Engineering of the King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, w.e.f. 4-10-1977, and subsequently posted as Assistant Director, Students Affairs Department and Administrative Officer in the said Institution. The appellant while working in the said organization also addressed a number of applications to the respondents to maintain his lien. He was also recommended by the Dean, College of Engineering, King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, that his service be placed on deputation with the said organization w.e.f. 4-10-1977 for a period of 3 years. He further submitted that in August, 1978 the Government of the Punjab, Services, General Administration Department issued a new Policy Circular letter, dated 8-8-1978, inter alia regularizing service abroad of all such Government servants who were serving abroad without approval till the completion of their contractual period. The appellant relying on the said circular submitted another application, dated 10-3-1979 to respondent No.1 for maintenance of his lien and approval of his deputation abroad The respondent No. 1 issued letter to Saudi Arabia but the appellant had left Saudi Arabia in the first week of June, 1979, on vacations to Pakistan. He visited the office of respondent and came to know that the respondent had declined to accede to the request of the appellant for regularising of his case. The appellant consulted Dr. Farooq Azeem Hassan, Senior Advocate, Lahore and in pursuance of his advice he filed Writ Petition No. 3533/S of 1979, dated 26-6-1979, in the Lahore High Court, Lahore against the aforesaid impugned order, dated 24-3-1979. The said writ petition was admitted by Justice Gul Muhammad Khan on 10-7-1979. Ultimately the said writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the Lahore High Court had no jurisdiction in service matters and proper forum would be the Punjab Service Tribunal for the said purpose. The appellant reported himself for duty with the respondents but he was charge-sheeted for wilful absence from duty and treated the period without leave as well as without N.O.C. The appellant has come before this Tribunal against the said action of the respondents which he has challenged before this Tribunal as unjust as well as illegal.
5. We 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 with their assistance.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has conceded that the appellant went to Saudi Arabia without leave and without N.O.C. On the presumption that his application had been recommended by the respondents to the Dean of King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, therefore, he was within his rights to go and appear himself for interview before the said organization. For this he has relied on circular, dated 8-8-1978, issued by the Government of the Punjab, Services General Administration and Information Department, which is as under:- I am directed to refer to this Department's C.L. Of even number, -dated 24-10-1977, on the subject noted above and to say that in partial modification of paragraph 4 of Establishment Division's Memo. No. 1/23/66-TIV, dated 6-10-1977 (forming enclosure thereto) it has been decided that Government servants who have before this date secured employment with private bodies in foreign countries on contract without prior approval of Government, may be allowed to remain abroad till termination of their contract period provided that their total period of foreign employment does not exceed 5 years. Such Government servants should submit copies of their contract, duly authenticated through the Pakistan Missions concerned to their Administrative Departments so that their lien may be maintained and the condition of their return by the 30th June, 1978, is waived."
According to the learned 'counsel for the appellant, the appellant's action was fully justified and should have been given protection in view of this circular as he had sought employment with the King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, earlier than the circular but the said circular directing the Government to allow him to complete his five years and earlier decision of Government that he was-liable to return on 30-6-1978, stood waived.
7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has resisted the claim of the appellant, which has been so argued through the learned counsel for the appellant, by submitting that the very circular on which he has placed reliance does not help him in any manner whatsoever. According to him, this circular would only relate to the persons who had left Pakistan by getting their leave sanctioned and availed job opportunities abroad during the period of their stay in the said country.
According to him this circular would not be applicable to the persons who proceeded abroad without prior sanction of leave in their favour and without N.O.C., which was a must in their cases, as they were civil servants at the relevant time. It has been further argued that in this circular the concession would only be available to the category of persons so mentioned in the said circular, if they had sought employment with private bodies in foreign countries and not in Government Institutions of the said Government. According to the learned District Attorney, King Abdul Aziz University was a Government Institution and thus the appellant could not seek employment with the said organization.
8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the appellant left Pakistan although being) a civil servant without any leave, sanctioned in his favour and without obtaining N.O.C. From Government to proceed abroad. This mere fact does not entitle him to the benefit of this circular which is only meant for those persons who were already in foreign countries with the permission of Government and sought some jobs and stayed there. Moreover we are in agreement with the learned District Attorney that even in this case also the said civil servants were only permitted to join private bodies and not the Government Institutions. This being the state of affairs the grievance of the appellant that he was not allowed to stay abroad and his various applications stood unanswered, pale into insignificance. The Government was fully justified to treat him as absentee who had proceeded abroad without prior permission/ concurrence of the Government and without securing N.O.C. From the Government of Pakistan, the conduct of the appellant in this case does not stand covered by the circular letter on which he has so relied and we are of the considered opinion that his appeal is liable to fail.
9. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.