1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---These are two petitions filed under Article ' 212(3) of the Constitution. The facts giving rise to these petitions, briefly stated are that Saeed Hayat respondent in Petit ion No, 211-R of 1989 and petitioner in Petition No, 266-R of 1989, an employee of the P.I.A.C. As Scheduling Officer got ex-Pakistan leave w,e,f. 29-124985 to 30-1-1986 and went to U.SA. He applied on 25-3-1986 from abroad for an extension on medical grounds amd submitted medical certificate so obtained from the two different doctors, wherein 8 weeks leave starting from 10-3-1986, was recommended. On 25-3-1986 he was served with a show-cause notice by his parent department for absence from his duty without permission and asked his explanation in writing within seven days of the receipt of the show-cause notice, that why disciplinary action should not be taken against him under the P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Rules, 1985, under heading "Misconduct 75(h)". In his explanation to the show-cause notice he referred to his application for extension and two medical certificates submitted by him in this regard. His explanation was rejected. Another show-cause notice was issued to the said respondent on 8-7-1986 and on the basis of which an enquiry was held against him and he was given an opportunity of being heard. The enquiry officer examined the evidence and relevant documents and found him guilty of the charge levelled against him and he was dismissed from the P.I.A. Service, vide order dated 13-8-1986.
2. ' Saeed Hayat respondent being aggrieved from the said order filed apppeal before the Federal Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The learned Service Tribunal modified the punishment of the respondent from dismissal from service to that of reduction to minimum of pay scale for a period of three years, vide impugned judgment. Hence, these two petitions for leave to appeal from both the parties against the said order.
3. ' We have heard Raja Muhammad Akram learned A.S.C. From the department side and Khan Imtiaz Khan, A.O.R. From Saeed Hayat in support of their respective petitions and have gone through the finding of the Tribunal and record of the case. A perusal of the record shows that the Saeed Hayat has himself admitted in his statement that he had stayed in America to obtain Green Card for improving his qualifications and on the basis of which the learned author Member of the judgment of the Tribunal while giving his opinion on 13-12-1988 held that:- "The penalty of dismissal has been awarded in this case but in our opinion, the said admission of the appellant at the time of hearing that he had stayed back for obtaining green card and for improving his qualification persuades us to take a lenient view of the matter specially when he had reported back for duty. In these circumstances, we while upholding the finding of guilty, alter the penalty of dismissal to that of major penalty of reduction to the minimum of his pay scale. The appellant is accordingly reinstated. The period of his absence and the period till today is treated as extraordinary leave without pay."
4. ' The learned second Member of the Tribunal formed a different opinion and dismissed the appeal as time-barred, vide his opinion dated 8-3-1989. The Hon'ble Chairman of the Tribunal while vetting both the opinion of the learned Members and merit of the case agreed with the opinion adopted by the author learned Member and disagreed with the second Member and held his own opinion that the departmental appeal filed by the said respondent was within time because he was not communicated any order on his departmental appeal and, therefore, the appeal filed on 14-1-1987 was within the requisite period of limitation of 120 days in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the reported case of "Kadir Bux v. Province of Sindh"1982 SCM R 582.
5. After hearing the learned counsel we are not persuaded that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal suffers from any infirmity. As no substantial question of law of public importance is involved in these petitions. There is only conflicting views of the learned Members and the Chairman of the Tribunal. We hold that the majority views will prevail on the minority. Resultantly, these petitions are hereby dismissed.