' MUHAMMAD MEHMOOD ASLAM PIRZADA (CHAIRMAN).--- Sh. Abdul Ghani has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned orders dated 20-10- 1988 and 29-11-1985 passed by respondents. The appellant has impleaded the Secretary, Housing Environmental and Physical Planning and Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore as respondents. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders passed by respondents be set aside and his appeal be accepted.
2. Salient features of this appeal preferably are that after the expiry of medical leave which ended on 30-6-1987 the appellant did not report for duty to the Secretary, HP & EP Department, Lahore and instead applied on 10-1-1988 for L.P.R. w,e,f, 1-7-1987. Since he had stayed away from duty w,e,f, 1-7- 1987 he was considered absent without permission. In any case under the rules L.P.R. Could not be sanctioned in conjunction with any other kind of leave. Charge-sheet and statement of allegations were served on the appellant and an Enquiry Officer was appointed who after holding the enquiry found the accused official guilty of the charge. The authority after observing the legal formalities and agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and recommendations of the authorised officer imposed the major penalty of removal from service vide his impugned order dated 20-10- 1988. The appellant filed a departmental appeal which was rejected vide impugned order dated 29-11-1988.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with the assistance of the representatives of the department.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the procedure incorporated in the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 has not at all been adopted during the enquiry proceedings. Conversely, the learned District Attorney vehemently opposed the appeal and argued that in the light of comments/report furnished on behalf of respondents the impugned orders passed by the respondents may be allowed to stand.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and find that the appellant was due to resume his duty on 1-7-1987 after the expiry of medical leave. The appellant's request to sanction L.P.R. w,e,f, the same date i,e, 1-7-1987 was contrary to the instructions on the subject and could not therefore be accorded to. These instructions are reproduced below:-- "Any official opting to proceed on retirement has to intimate to his Appointing Authority at least three months in advance of the date from which he wishes to retire."
"Provided that leave preparatory to retirement shall not be combined with any other kind of leave."
6. The application for L.P.R. Submitted by him was also against the I provisions of Rule 25 of the Revised Leave Rules, 1981 which reads as under:
7. Thus not only that, his request was against rules but in the process he I c also became guilty of authorised absence from duty.
8. As far as the departmental proceedings in this case are concerned we find that these heave been conducted in accordance with the procedure incorporated in the ,Punjab Civil Servants (E&D)
Rules, 1975.
9. Viewed in this context we find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by respondents and as such dismiss the appeal with no orders as to costs.
10. Copies of signed judgment be released to the parties according to the procedure of the Tribunal.