The decision, dated 6-7-1985 recorded by learned Court No. 4, Faisalabad has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The appellant was allowed leave from 21-9-1982 to 22-1-1983. On the expiry of leave he sent medical certificate of Civil Surgeon Exh, R. 9/Exh. P. 1 without sending any application for leave. He reported for duty on 23-4-1983 alongwith fitness certificate Exh. P.
2. On 2-6-1983 he was delivered show-cause notice Exh. P. 4, and without holding any enquiry his services were terminated vide order Exh. P.
8. No order of rejecting leave was passed before issuing charge-sheet and order of termination of services of the appellant as none is on the record.
3. The learned lower Court has held that show-cause notice was issued to the appellant although it was described as a charge-sheet. A document is to be considered, as it has been described not in a different manner. Since the respondent itself described Exh P. 4 as a charge-sheet it was to be taken only as such and not as a show-cause notice. The competent authority after perusing the reply to the charge-sheet had to decide whether holding of enquiry was or was not necessary but no such order is on the record. According to the circumstances of the case it was necessary to hold enquiry in order to give opportunity to the appellant to prove his illness. No doubt, in the medical certificate it was noted that it was not valid for being producing in a Court but it does not necessarily mean either that the appellant was not ill or that the illness was not sufficient to prevent the appellant from resuming his duties. If enquiry had been held the appellant may have produced the Doctor to prove his illness and reason for which the Doctor had written that the certificate was not meant to be produced in the Court. It is noteworthy that the words not valid for Court are' not typed although the medical certificate is in typed form. As the learned lower Court has also remarked that since the medical certificate was not of an authorised Doctor, therefore, the respondent was justified in ignoring it. But there is no order on the record to the effect that the certificate was ignored for the reason that it had not been issued by an authorised Doctor. There is no document on the record to show that the Railway has authorised some particular Doctor to examine the railway employees and to recommend leaves. Even if it be said that the respondent was not prepared to believe the certificate, it should have asked the appellant to get the certificate countersigned by the authorised Medical Officer of the railway if any but this was not done and abruptly the order of termination of service was issued after the appellant sent his reply to the charge-sheet. There is no order whereby leave may have been refused. Since the medical certificate was not brought by the appellant himself when he had reported for duty but he had sent the same earlier, the respondent should have sent back the certificate asking the appellant to get it endorsed by the authorised Medical Officer before treating him absent. If in reality an employee is ill and is not in a position to render service he cannot be forced to attend to his duties and much less in a department of railway. If an ailing worker is compelled to discharge his duties in spite of being ill he may endanger human life by working inefficiently due to illness. Request for leave should not be brushed aside without giving it due consideration and allowing opportunity to the person concerned to prove his illness. There is no order on the record calling upon the appellant to attend to his duties informing him that his leave had not been sanctioned. In the absence of such an order the appellant was justified in completing the period for which he had sent medical certificate. These were the relevant facts, which should have been brought under consideration bat the learned lower Court did not advert to the same and thus fell in error in dismissing the grievance petition.
3. As a result the appeal is accepted and the appellant is directed to be re-instated in service without back benefits. Back benefits have not been allowed since the appellant did not assert that from the date of the termination of service he had remained jobless A. E