JUSTICE (RTD) MUNAWARALI KHAN (Chairman).-In consequence of disciplinary proceedings taken against appellant, Miss Hoor, J.S.T.Govt.Girls Middle School, Tando Qaiser, Hyderabad, Distt, she was removed from service vide order dated 6.11.1990 of the District Education Officer (Female)
Hyderabad. The appellant has challenged her removal from service in this appeal after availing the departmental remedy.
2. The facts of the appellant's case as collected from the record available in her case file may briefly be stated as follows. The appellant was appointed as Junior Secondary Teacher vide order dated 7.7.1983 of the District Education Officer (Girls) Shikarpur. On her own request she was subsequently transferred to Hyderabad Distt, by the Director, School Education, Hyderabad's order dated 7.9.1983. In the said District she was posted in the Govt. Girls Middle School Tando Qaiser, where she submitted her joining report on 15.9.1983. Due to certain difficulties created by the MRD movement, the appellant repeatedly requested the DEO, Hyderabad for her transfer from the said school. Instead of acceding to her request for transfer , she was advised to apply for extraordinary leave. Accordingly she moved such application on 13.10.1983 praying for extraordinary leave for 11 months from 8th October, 1983 to 7th September, 1984. After expiry of the said leave, the appellant made persistent requests for her posting order but with no result. Instead she was required by the D.E.O's letter dated 21.9.1987 to furnish proof of her joining service in the Hyderabad District. In reply she explained the entire position of her case. Meanwhile she came to know that the order of her inter district transfer had been cancelled in February, 1985. She represented against such cancellation of her transfer. By subsequent letter dated 19.3.1988 from the DEO, the appellant was informed that her case being time-barred could not be considered at such belated stage. Once again she received letter dated 6.6.1988, intimating her that owing to her continued absence for nearly four years, her lien on the post automatically stood terminated. Thereafter the appellant made applications to the higher authorities. But instead of providing her any relief, she was served with the show-cause notice dated 31.3.1990 bearing false and fabricated allegations that she did not turn up for posting and remained continuously absent until the date of notice. The appellant submitted her reply to the above notice making complete denial of the allegations. She was given personal hearing and also the final show-cause notice. The appellant was ultimately removed from service by the impugned order. She challenged the order of removal in departmental appeal filed before the Director, School Education, Hyderabad and after waiting for its result for the statutory period of 90 days, she filed the present appeal.
3. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. With their help, wc also went through the record of the case relevant for its disposal.
4. We may first proceed to examine the charges which have been made basis for the appellant's removal from service. Their details are mentioned in the show- cause notice as under: "That on your transfer from Shikarpur to Hyderabad vide Director School Education, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad's Order No.AW-11\-716-20 dated 7.9.1983. Subsequently on subdivision of joining report, you were posted as J.S.T. Govt. Girls Middle School Tando Qaiser Vide this office order No. DSO(SSM) 2313-15, dated 5.9.1983 you joined thereon 15.9.1983 and after staying for about 9 days if you had left the School by submitting a leave application for the period from 8.10.1983 to 7.9.1984 (both days inclusive) without getting the leave sanctioned by the competent authority. After the expiry of self-grant unauthorized leave, you did not turn upto posting and remained absent continuously till to date."
5.- It is the appellant's own case that following her transfer from Shikarpur District to Hyderabad District, she was posted as J.S.T. Govt: Girls Middle School Tando Qaiser in the latter Distt. It is also admitted by the appellant that due to certain difficulties being faced by her in serving iff Tando Qaiser School, she made constant requests for her transfer from that school and she ultimately applied for extraordinary leave for eleven months. According to the appellant's learned counsel, not only the appellant made application for extraordinary leave on advice of the DEO, Hyderabad but also her said application was granted. In this connection it may be pertinent to also refer to para 6 of the memo of appeal, which reads as under:- "6. That the appellant after joining at Government Middle School Tando Qaiser was constant to approach the Respondent No.1 for her posting at any other school in Hyderabad city due to the hurdles of procession account of MRD Movement but she was advised by the respondent No.1 to moved an application for extraordinary leave for 11 months. The appellant consequent of the advice of the Respondent' No.1 had move an application for extraordinary leave from 8th October, 1983 to 7th September, 1984 vide application dated 13.10.1983 due Inwarded in the inward Register at serialNo.1032 due 15.10.1983. The respondent No.1 had granted the said application at the spot and allowed the appellant to proceed on aforesaid extraordinary leave."
6. In reply to the plea taken by appellant in para 6 and the respondents have stated in para 2 of the written statement as under: "2. That the contents of para 6 are denied. The fact of the matter is that the appellant had no mind to serve at as a teacher at Govt. Girls Middle School Tando Qaiser. In order to avoid, duties she sent an application to the authority requesting for the grant of Extraordinary Leave for 11 months to her which was not entertained and the teacher disappeared from the duties without the permission thereby resorting to misconduct."
7. In view of the above conflicting stands of the parties the controversy that we are called upon to resolve is whether the extraordinary leave applied for by the appellant was sanctioned to her and whether she continuously remained absent from her duties un-authorisedly. As stated above the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant was that she applied for extraordinary, leave on the DEO's advice and that her request for the said leave was granted . This was however denied by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. His denial finds confirmation even from para 2 of the written statement. The appellant's learned counsel was unable to show us any thing in black and white to substantiate his client's claim that she had made application for extra-ordinary leave no DEO's advice and that her such application was allowed. In absence of such proof, we cannot persuade ourselves to accept the appellant's assertion that she had applied for extraordinary leave on the DEO's advice. Even otherwise it does not appeal to a reasonable mind that the DEO would give such advice to the appellant particularly when the appellant was a new entrant in service and by the time she had made application for extra ordinary leave(13.10.1983) she had hardly three months service to her credit, the date of her appointment order being 7.7.1983.
Moreover, as is reflected in her appointment order, her employment was purely temporary terminable on return of persons from training. On the other hand it looked more probable that when the appellant found it difficult to serve in Tando Qaiser School, she saw no alternative but to apply for extraordinary leave. Because in view of her total service of three months, no other leave was due to her. Accordingly we are convinced that the appellant made application for extraordinary leave on her own.
8. The next point for our consideration is if the extra-ordinary leave applied for by the appellant was sanctioned to her. Once again she has furnished no proof in support of her plea in this regard. Her learned counsel however emphasized in course of his arguments that the necessary order of sanction was passed on the original application itself. Some how the original application is not forthcoming. The departmental representative who was specially called for this purpose un- hesitatingly informed us that the appellant's application for extra- ordinary leave was misplaced.
On the basis of his above reply the appellant's learned counsel desired us to conclude that the appellant's request for extraordinary leave was allowed on her original application and therefore the said application had been deliberately withheld. We see no justification to draw such conclusion, when it is specifically mentioned in the charge itself that the appellant availed the extraordinary leave without being sanctioned. This shows that the leave was never sanctioned to her. It was quite possible that the original application for extraordinary leave had been misplaced.
There is no cogent reason for attributing falsehood to the departmental authorities for withholding of the said application. As has been noted earlier, the appellant had hardly three months service when she applied for extraordinary leave. In our opinion this reason might have weighed heavily with the authorities for having refused to allow the extraordinary leave applied for by the appellant.
9. The next contention of the appellant's learned counsel was that the authorities took years to pass the impugned order of the appellant's removal from service. According to him, the appellant could have been sacked for her unauthorized absence in the very year she had remained absent from duties i.e.1983 but instead the authorities took over seven years to bring end to the appellant's services. This attitude of the departmental authorities, the learned counsel submitted, was enough to hold that they had not been straightforward in handling the appellant's case. It may be true that the authorities concerned had shown unusual lethargy and indifference in the appellant's case. For that reason they can be appreciately accused of callousness and red-tapism and even pushed on that charge. But we do not see how the appellant would be entitled to get the benefit of the lapses on the part of the departmental functionaries.. We would like to recommend that after making thorough probe in the case the functionaries found guilty of the negligence and undue delay should be brought to book. But for that reason we cannot simultaneously hold that the unauthorized absence of the appellant he condoned. As is clear from the above discussion, her absence from duties is established from her own version of the case. In the face of these findings, the communications received by the appellant from time to time from the departmental authorities were inconsequential and would not have the effect of washing off the charge of un- authorized absence against the appellant.
10. For above reasons we see no merit in the appeal which is dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. Given under our hands and the Seal of this Tribunal on this 30th day of December, 1991 at Karachi.