CH. HASAN NAWAZ (MEMBER).--The appellant was appointed as-Motor Attendant on 20-5-1980, in M.E.S. Department, Garrison Engineer (A), Lahore Cantt. While he was working under the control of S.D.O., Water. Supply, Lahore Cantt., three days casual leave from 1-10-1984 to 3-10-1984 was granted to him by the Garrison Engineer (Construction) Lahore Cantt. with permission to leave the station.
2. He failed to attend on the conclusion of his casual leave and was served with show-cause notice dated 22-10-1984 where it was stated that he had been absent from duty without proper permission and intimation after the conclusion of his casual leave. He was called upon to explain by 25-10-1984 as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. It appears that this notice went without any response and there being no information regarding the appellant's whereabouts, he was served with charge-sheet dated 12-5-1985, which was despatched alongwith a covering letter dated 14-5-1985. He was called upon to submit his explanation in defence by 20- 5-1985. The letter said that in the event of there being no response, it will be assumed that he had no explanation to offer.
3. In the charge-sheet it was alleged that he was guilty of misconduct, in that while in employment as Motor Attendant under S.D.O., Water Supply, Lahore Cantt. in the office of Garrison Engineer (Army), Lahore and attached with Garrison Engineer (Construction) Lahore, he absented himself from duty with effect from 4-10-1984 without sanction of leave. In support of the charge, reliance was placed on letter dated 20-10-1984 which purports to have been addressed to him by the office of Garrison Engineer (Army), Lahore Cantt. It said that it had been reported by the Garrison Engineer (Construction), Lahore that he was absent from duty with effect from 4-10-1984 without proper permission and intimation after availing of casual leave from 1-10-1984 to 3-10-1984.
4. He appears to have then been served with letter dated 16-7-1985 purporting to have been issued by the Inquiry Officer where he was called upon to appear before him on 22-7-1985 with the intimation that he had been appointed as single man inquiry officer to go into the matter of his "persistent absence" from duty without information. In response to this letter he filed his explanation on 22-7-1985 which was followed by another explanation on 24-7-1985.
5. This explanation did not find favour with the respondents and by letter dated 9-10-1985 issued by the office of Garrison Engineer (Army) North, Lahore Cantt, he was informed that he had been removed from service with effect from 4-10-1984 due to absence from duty. His departmental appeal dated 28-10-1985 having borne no fruit, he came to this Tribunal with the present appeal under section 4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
6.It appears from the record that he attended the office on 21-7-1985. In his joining report he said that he could not join the office because of illness and that he had attended on 21-7-1985 after having been declared fit to resume duty by the Doctor. Even in his explanations in writing dated 22- 7-1985 and 24-7-1985, he stated that he remained ill from 4-10-1984 to 20-7-1985 and that his absence from duty was due to ailment, which he tried to support by production of medical certificates purporting to have been issued by some private medical practitioners.
7. Cancellation of the impugned order is being sought on the following grounds:-- (a)The appellant has been condemned unheard.
(b)The appellant has been illegally removed from service on the charge of absence when he submitted medical certificates issued by the competent medical practitioners.
(c)The appellant was never served with any notice and the Inquiry Officer was illegally appointed and he neither recorded any evidence, nor gave the appellant a chance of hearing.
(d)The appellant was neither provided with a copy of the inquiry report, nor was he served with any show-cause notice which was in violation of the Law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mir Muhammad's case PLD 1981 SC 176.
(e)The impugned order was passed in clear violation of Leave Rules and Regulations which provide that leave on medical ground shall not be refused.
8. In defence it has been pleaded that the appellant has been absent from duty without permission for a long period from 4-10-1984 to 21-7-1985 and that there was no truth in the allegation that his absence was due to any illness. It was further pleaded that the procedure envisaged by Efficiency and Discipline Rules was observed and that the passage of impugned order was the result of proceedings which were held in accordance with the rules. The production of medical certificates was only a vain attempt to justify the period of absence. It is also in the respondent's pleadings that the appellant was given full opportunity to defend himself against the action proposed to be taken against him.
9. In view of the circumstances of this case, the most important question to be settled in this case is whether there is any substance in the allegation that the appellant's absence from the office without permission was due to any serious ailment, as could physically prevent him even from making an application for leave. It is an admitted fact that he remained absent from duty without permission for the period from 4-10-1984 to 20-7-1985. He went home on casual leave for a period of three days from 1-10-1984 to 3-10-1984 and did not report for duty after the conclusion of this casual leave. As already noticed, his explaination is that he was prevented from attending the office because of serious inn( s which obliged him to remain hospitalised at Sialkot where he was under the 'consistent treatment of Rizwan Clinic and Rahim Hospital". He pleaded that on recovery he reported back for duty on 21-7-1985.
9-A. Four medical certificates (Annexures A, B, C & D) have been placed on record in support of appellant's serious illness. Two certificates (Annexures A & B) purporting to have been issued by one Dr. Rizwan Ali of Rizwan Clinic Sialkot tend to show that he was advised rest by the Doctor for a period of three months from 4-10-1984 to 3-1-1985 on account of Pulmonary Tuberculosis. On both these certificates, however, it has been stamped that they are not valid for Court. It is not possible for us to appreciate as to what exactly was the purpose of this stamped statement on the certificates. What ever be the purpose, it is clear that this statement casts an adverse aspersion on the certificates and makes them not only extremely doubtful but valueless documents. If the appellant was really sick, we are unable to understand why the Doctor felt the need of saying that the certificates were not valid for production in a Court of Law. We feel no, hesitation in saying that these certificates are of doubtful veracity and hardly sufficient to A support the allegation that the appellant had been suffering from any serious ailment.
10.The other two certificates (Annexures C & D) advising him rest from 4-1-1985 to 20-7-1985 purport to have been issued by Dr. Aziz Ahmad of Raheem Hospital, Sialkot. It is certified that the appellant has been suffering from "Ulcerative Collitis." Even these certificates are not worthy of any reliance, partly because of the fact that they have been issued by a private medical practitioner and partly because of other circumstances which become available from letter dated 5-10-1986 addressed to the Garrison Engineer (Army) North Lahore Cantt. by Dr. Rizwan Ali of Sialkot which shows that there is no facility for hospitalisation in the Clinic operated by him. This gives a clear lie to the allegation that the appellant remained hospitalised at Sialkot because of illness. We have no doubt that these certificates were procured by the appellant to save himself from consequences of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him because of long absence from the office without permission. We feel no hesitation in finding that they do not bear out any reliable evidence to support his assertion.
11.There is no denial of the fact that he did not join his office after the conclusion of casual leave and that he never made any application for leave from 4-10-1984 to 20-7-1985. During the period of his absence, it was for the first time on 3-7-1985 that he addressed a letter to the office concerned to inform that he had not been able to attend because of illness. He also said in this letter that medical certificates are being enclosed for information. In spite of this assertion, however, it does not appear to be correct that any medical certificate was despatched alongwith this letter. But this is besides the point; which is that he never took the trouble of making any application for leave during all this period, although, as we have noticed, there is no proof of the fact that he suffered from any disease, much less such as would have physically prevented him even from sending an application. He seems to have told a lie in saying that he remained hospitalised at Sialkot, with the evident purpose of causing an impression that he lid not receive the notices issued during the disciplinary proceedings.
12.Further, as we see, it is pleaded in paragraph 4 of the appeal that he was served with charge- sheet dated 12-5-1985 saying that he was guilty of misconduct because of unauthorised absence from 4-10-1984, alongwith covering letter dated 4-5-1985. It is further pleaded that on 3-7-1985 he sent a reply to this charge-sheet through registered post informing respondent No, 1 about his sickness and that he enclosed the original medical certificates. This assertion is, however, belied from the record. His letter dated 3-7-1985 (Annexure-H) shows that it was in response to final show-cause notice dated 27-6-1985. Therefore, the aforementioned allegations made in paragraph 4 of the appeal are belied by the appellant's own letter and there is nothing on the record to show that this letter was in response to charge-sheet dated 12-5-1985 served with covering letter dated 14-5-1985. Even otherwise, letter dated 3-7-1985 was despatched so late after service of charge-sheet dated 12-5-1985 with covering letter dated 14-5-1985.
13.The record shows that by letter dated 16-7-1985 (Annexure-I) he was informed that an Inquiry Officer had been appointed to enquire into the matter of his absence and that he was directed to appear before him on 22-7-1985. It appears that it was only after having been in receipt of this letter that he submitted his explanation dated 22-7-1985 followed by another such explanation dated 24-7-1985. He stated in the explanations that he remained at Sialkot under the supervision of his Doctor on account of ailment and that he could not have any contact with his office. It is further said that his relatives could not inform him because of his ailment. We have already seen that the allegation regarding illness is without any basis. This being so, we hardly find any excuse for the appellant's long absence and his failure to make even an application for leave. There is no reason whatever, why he could not make such a request in time duly supported by a medical certificate.
14.Seen in the context of what appears to have been established from the record, it is impossible to find that the appellant had not been given an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him and that he was condemned unheard. Notices including final show-cause notice dated 3-9-1985 were served upon him and he was given full opportunity to explain his position and defend himself against the proposed action. He remained absent from duty without permission which amounted to misconduct of gross nature, as it betrayed wanton disregard of office discipline, justifying his removal from service.
15.It does not appear to have been denied that he was not provided with a copy of the inquiry report. However, we are of the view that his case has not suffered on account of this circumstance, in the presence of the conviction that he had not been suffering from any ailment, as could have justified his unauthorised absence and prevented him from making an application. Even if any such application had been made, the competent authority was under no legal obligation to grant it, in the absence of a proof that he in fact was suffering from any disease. We find that the facts of this case are distinguishable from that of Mir Muhammad and the department's failure to provide the appellant with a copy of the inquiry report did not cause any prejudice or harm to his case.
Even if he had been provided with a copy of the report, his case could not have been promoted under the circumstances. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the respondent's failure to provide him with a copy of the inquiry report, did not result in any miscarriage of justice, as could have led us to the finding that the entire proceedings were vitiated. The case of Muhammad Hamid v. The Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore 1989 SCMR 617 can be relied upon as authority in support of this view.
16.For these reasons, we hold that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. The appeal is dismissed as being without any substance. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
17.Parties to be informed.