1. ' MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--The appellant Muhammad Salcem was Lecturer, in Political Science, S.S. Government College, Hyderabad when he proceeded on two months' leave sanctioned to him on the ground of private affairs. He was due to return on 1-7-1981 but he failed to resume his duties. Instead he applied for extension of leave for another two months with permission to suffix summer vacation. Meanwhile it was brought to the notice of the Government that the appellant had gone abroad without permission of the competent Authority. Obviously further leave was not granted to him but he could not be intimated about the same as his application for the extension of leave did not carry his address. However, the Department waited until he was ultimately served with show-cause notice dated 31st December, 1981. The appellant submitted his reply to the said notice on 15-2-1982. Nearly eight months thereafter the appellant turned up on 3-10-1982 and submitted his duty report to the Principal of the College. Thereupon he was advised to address himself to the Government for the posting orders. He approached the Government for the said purpose but without any success. The appellant was at last removed from service vide Government Notification dated 14-1-1985 issued by Secretary Education. He preferred appeal to the Chief Secretary against the order of his removal, and after mandatory waiting for 90 days for decision of the departmental appellate authority he came to this Tribunal in appeal with prayer that the order of his removal from service he set aside and he may be reinstated with full hack benefits.
2. ' We heard the arguments of Mr. Choudhry Rashced Alimad on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Imdad Hussain Qazi, Government counsel made his submissions for the official respondents. We also went through the relevant record with assistance of the said counsel.
3. ' It appears that apart from the show-cause notice dated 31st December, /1981, the appellant was given another notice through newspaper containing allegations with regard to his lapses in professional duties. Since no further action was taken in pursuance of the said notice, we would confine ourselves to the show-cause notice dated 31st December, 1981 which reads as under:- ' In exercise of the powers conferred by rule 4(A) read with sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, I Ali Dino M. Panhwar, Secretary, Education Department, Government of Sind, Karachi as an authorized officer:- (i)am of the opinion that in view of the allegations that you have committed acts of misconduct and indiscipline, details of which are given below there are sufficient grounds that disciplinary action be taken against you under the rules, and
(ii) have decided that it is not necessary to have an enquiry conducted through an Enquiry Officer or Enquiry Committee. I, therefore, by this order inform you that on the above grounds it is proposed to impose all or any of the penalties described in Rule 4 of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 on you and you are accordingly called upon to show cause why the proposed action should not be taken against you. Your explanation should reach the undersigned within seven days of the receipt of this order failing which it will be presumed that you have declined to offer explanation. You may also indicate whether you would like to be heard in person.
4. ' Details of misconduct/dereliction of duty are that:- (i)You proceeded on leave for two months with effect from 4-5-1981 to 30-6-1981, and were due on 1-7-1981, but you failed to resume your duty on due date and up to this time without any intimation whatsoever. Thus, you are absent from duty.
(ii) It is reported that you left country without prior permission of Government."
5. ' It appears from the above show-cause notice that two charges were leveled against the appellant: firstly, that on expiry of his two month' leave he absented himself from duty from 1-7-1981 and secondly that he left the country without prior permission of the Government. We have closely read the appellant's reply to the notice. As regards the first charge, it is admitted by him that on expiry of initial leave for two months, he applied for extension of leave thrice--first two extensions for two months each and third extension for six months. Thus, according to his own showing, the appellant remained absent from duty for total period of ten months. There is no indication in his reply that the extensions of leave applied for by him were duly sanctioned by the competent authority. All that he has .Stated in his explanation to the show-cause notice, is that he sent all his applications for extension of leave under registered cover. But neither any postal registration receipt nor any postal acknowledgement receipt has been placed on record by the appellant to substantiate his claim of having sent the above communications by registered post. In any case it is proved from the appellant's own reply that he remained absent from duty for a period of ten months and that his absence was unauthorised. In other words the extensions of leave applied for by him were not sanctioned.
6. ' On the other hand it is disclosed in para. 2 of the written statement filed on behalf of the official respondents that it was brought to the notice of the Government that the appellant had left the country without permission of the competent authority. Obviously for that reason his first and only application for extension of leave though received by the authorities was not entertained. But as stated in the said para of written statement the appellant could not be informed about the fate 'of his application as he had not mentioned his address. We have no reason to doubt this assertion particularly when the appellant has made no attempt to produce any evidence in rebuttal. Even otherwise it was for the appellant to ascertain if his request made from time to time for extension of leave 'was acceded to. Since he showed his negligence in this regard he had to suffer the consequences.
7. Apart from above, the explanation furnished by the appellant in reply to the show-cause notice is evidently self-contradictory. As stated by him first extension of leave expired on 4-9-1981. If so, the subsequent two extensions, one of two months and another of six months should have ended on 4-5-1982 and not on 30-6-1982 as has been mentioned by him in his reply. Even if his version as to the end of his leave period was accepted, he should have reported for duty on 1-7-1982. But according to his own admission he submitted duty report on 3-10-1982. The appellant has furnished absolutely no explanation for delaying his duty report for nearly three months. This adversely reflects on his conduct that he has exhibited from the day he proceeded on leave. From the circumstances discussed above we are convinced that the appellant remained absent from duty unauthorized from the date his leave for two months expired (1-7-1981).
8. ' For the proof of the second charge that the appellant went abroad without prior permission of the competent authority, we may once again revert to appellant's own admission contained in his reply to the show-cause notice. It is in the following words: "with regard to the IInd charge that I left the country without prior permission of Government is absolutely baseless." The reasonable interpretation that may be attributed to the appellant's above statement would be that he meant to say that it was absolutely baseless that he left the country without prior permission of the Government. In other words what the appellant wanted to convey was that he did go abroad but not without prior permission of the Government. If this is so it was for him to have placed on record the N.O.C. (No-objection certificate) of the competent Authority permitting him to go abroad. His failure to produce such document would only show that he left the B country without prior permission of the competent Authority. This finding is further fortified by the fact that the appellant kept away from duty continuously for about 12 months including the initial period of two months leave. Had he been in the country, he would have ensured that his applications for extension of leave reached the authorities for which they were meant. Not only this but he would have taken care to mention his address in the said applications so that he got the reply about the fate thereof.
9. As stated above only one such application was received by the authorities and that too did not carry his address. It was also improbable that being in the country he would afford to remain absent for such a long period letting his applications for leave unattended and un responded. It is common knowledge that those Government employees who go abroad either in search of lucrative job or for doing some educational courses are invariably found to resort to such devious methods of leaving the country stealthily. Even the appellant's omission to produce all the copies of the applications for extension of leave tends to confirm our thinking that the appellant was not in the country. Even a copy of the solitary application produced by him did not carry his address, indicating thereby his un-availability in the country. For these reasons we hold that the second charge is also proved. Even if the second charge is dropped as unproved, the appellant cannot escape the liability of the first charge.
10. ' The learned counsel for the appellant severely criticized the delay in passing of the impugned order. It is true that the appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 15-2-1982 but the impugned order of the appellant's removal from service was passed for the first time on 7-8- 1984 and second time on 14-1-1985. The latter order was obviously made in supersession of the previous one. Such substitution became necessary because by the previous order the appellant was removed from service retrospectively which was manifestly illegal. In latter order the necessary rectification was made. As regards the delay, we are constrained to observe that it was reprehensible. The competent Authority took nearly three years to make up their mind to pass the impugned order. This reflects adversely on the working of the Department. We would wish that Secretary of the Department would take a serious note of the red tapes displayed in passing the impugned order and would direct holding of departmental enquiry with a view to fasten the responsibility on the delinquent official/officer concerned. However, such delay could not be taken as reason for exonerating the appellant from the liability.
11. ' For above reasons the appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs.