1. ' MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant was serving as Senior Clerk in the office of Superintendent of Police, Karak when he was granted 60 days earned leave on his application from 10-12-1987 to 7-2-1988 by respondent No, 2, but during this period he fell ill and became unable to attend the office and at the advice of the Medical Officer, he applied for medical leave per O.P.D. Chits. The leave was neither granted nor refused nor he was referred to the Standing Medical Board but the Authorised Officer was directed to proceed against the appellant departmentally. However, no charge-sheet was served upon him and the entire proceedings were initiated against him in absentia, with the result that he was dismissed from service vide order dated 26-6-1988 with effect from 8-2-1988. His appeal to respondent No, 1 also met with failure; hence the present appeal on the grounds that the proceedings against him are bad, illegal, void, against the principles of natural justice and equity. His illness was serious and he was unable to come to the office. Prior to this he did not commit any offence nor did absent himself from duty and the punishment awarded to him was according to him very severe.
2. ' Claim of the appellant was resisted by the respondents, who submitted the written statements and claimed that actually he did not suffer from any disease but he had gone abroad and the charge-sheet along with summary of allegations was sent upon his home address where his brother informed the serving official that the appellant has gone to Saudi Arabia for earning his livelihood. Besides this before the Enquiry Officer his brother, his uncle and a Malik of the village appeared who stated that the appellant was not available in the village or at Peshawar with his uncle. According to one he had gone to Multan and according to the other to Karachi. Besides this the S.H.O. Of the Police Station in whose jurisdiction, the appellant resides categorically stated that the appellant had gone to Saudi Arabia and his whereabouts were not known.
3. ' Record perused and arguments heard.
4. ' Learned counsel for the appellant argued that no charge-sheet/summary of allegations was served upon the appellant. His medical leave was neither rejected nor accepted. Over and above this, he was not referred to Standing Medical Board and his service was not made through any newspapers.
5. ' On the other hand learned Special Government Pleader assisted by the P.I. Kohat argued that appellant has got no case, that he was proceeded departmentally in a legal and proper manner, that there is ample evidence against him regarding his intentional absence and departure for foreign country, with no objection certificate, that the medical chits obtained by him were fake and could not be relied upon as every body can get the same from the Medical Officer sitting in the O.P.D.
6. We have gone through the record of the case with their assistance and have come to the conclusion that the case of the appellant is very weak. He had been to Saudi Arabia without the sanction of the proper authority during the period of earned leave and thereafter he had arranged to submit the applications for medical leave on the basis of the O.P.D. Chits. So far as the O.P.D.
7. Chits are concerned anybody can obtain the same because there is no arrangement of taking the signatures of the patient or his Identity Card by the Medical Officer sitting at the O.P.D. Or in the emergency ward. If his disease were so serious that A he was unable to attend his office work, then why he was not admitted in the hospital for proper treatment on the one hand and on the other hand if this were the state of affairs that if he could come from Karak, his native district, to Peshawar for treatment, then it becomes quite amazing that he avoided to visit his office situated in Karak City. Over and above this, the statements recorded by the Enquiry Officer, of the brother, and uncle of the appellant would give the impression that they were trying to hide the truth but a man can tell a lie, but not he circumstances. One thing is established that he was neither present in his village nor in Peshawar. It was not his case that he had been to Karachi or Multan for treatment so the charge imposed upon the appellant was quite true. Now we come to the severity of the offence. To earn livelihood in a legal manner is nowhere discouraged by any law of the land.
8. However, there are certain limitations imposed by the rules upon a Government servant that he has to satisfy these conditions before his departure for abroad. In the present case he left the country for outside but without permission/sanction from the authority concerned. This shows his highhandedness. Therefore, he is not entitled to any concession. So far as the question of refusal or grant of medical leave or his reference to the Medical Board is concerned, the act on the part of the respondents suggests that his leave was not granted and since the entire proceedings were held in his absence so he could not be referred to the Standing Medical Board humanly. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal fails which is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs and the file be consigned to the record room.