GHULAM ABBAS SOOMRO (MEMBER): --Appellant above --named has questioned the impugned order dated 21-5-1992 regarding his conditional reinstatement in service as Junior, Clerk in the Education Department.
2. The fads giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Junior Clerk in College Education Department on 1st March, 1975 and was posted at Islamic College, Badin. He proceeded on five days sanctioned leave with effect from 19th May, 1979 to 23rd May, 1979 and his father having died on 22nd May, 1979, he applied for 4 months earned leave with effect from 24-5- 1979 to 10-8-1979, which was not sanctioned but the appellant availed of that 4 months leave on the assumption that it had been granted. Appellant reported for duty on 11th August, 1979 but was not taken up on duty by the Principal, Islamic College, Badin who directed him to report to respondent No. 2 Director, College Education, Hyderabad Region. Later on, the appellant was transferred and posted as Junior Clerk at Government College, Mansura. Appellant joined duty there on 13-9-1979. He was again transferred to Government Degree College, Kandhkot, District Jacobabed where he joined service on 29-11-1979. During the course of service at Kandhkot the appellant is said to have detected fraud of Rs.9,261 in respect of the payment of college fees and on that account he is reported to have been sent on 4 months forced leave with effect from 6th March, 1980 to 30th June, 1980. The appellant waited for posting order and finally he received order dated 18-6-1987 (communicated to the appellant vide Letter No. (Admn) II/Estab/1339, dated 1-10- 1987) which is a letter addressed by Section Officer, Education Department to the Director, College Education, Hyderabad who had been advised to consider the appellant's case for, fresh appointment after relaxation of his age by the competent authority as a special case. The appellant filed appeal to the Secretary, Education Department against that order and after completion of the formalities he preferred Appeal bearing No. 4 of 1988 before this Tribunal challenging the said order. The appeal was admitted and in the written statement the respondent admitted that no final decision had yet taken place by the Education Department in regard to the issue of appellant's posting order. Consequently, the appellant withdrew his appeal before this Tribunal on 13-3-1989 to persue his representations regarding posting orders.
3. The appellant then perused his case before the department and vide letter dated 11-12-1989 the Director, College Education, Hyderabad appointed Inquiry Officer namely Professor Mushtaq Ahmed Sudrani, Principal, Government College, Hyderabad for inquiry. It is stated that appellant did not receive any charge-sheet or show-cause notice nor was he required to appear before the said Inquiry Officer. Suddenly, the appellant received the offer letter, dated 21st May, 1992 for his re- instatement in service as Junior Clerk on the following terms and conditions:-- "(a)that no back benefits shall be claimed by you as have remained absent from duty deliberately and wilfully and the entire period of your absence from duty will be treated as leave without pay; (b)that you will be posted as Junior Clerk in any College in HyderabadRegion; (c)that your three increments will be stopped with effect from the resumption of your duties."
Subsequently, the impugned order dated 24-5-1992 was issued in pursuance whereof the appellant joined service as Junior Clerk on 25-5-1992. The appellant being aggrieved by the conditional reinstatement in service, has therefore, filed the present appeal for redressal of his grievances.
4. We have heard the learned counsel Mr. Abdul Sattar Mughal for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari the learned AA.-G. On behalf of the Government, perused the record in detail and find that there is absolutely no substance in the appellant case for the reasons given below:--
(i) The record indicates that the appellant remained absent from service without reasonable cause for 6 years, 7 months and 10 days. The story that he went on from pillar to post for getting posting order seems to be devoid of truth. Instead of waiting for more than 6 years he could have conveniently perused legal remedies. Under Rule 33 of Sindh Civil Servants Rules, Vol. I a Government servant ceases to be in service if he remains absent from duty for more than 3 years.
It is really sad that the department did not take any action under the rules for his removal from service on account of the unauthorized absence from duty. Instead, the Education Department submitted a summary duly signed by the Additional Secretary on 10-5-1987 (Annexure `G' to this appeal) recommending for the fresh appointment of the appellant as a special case after relaxation of his age by competent authority. This proposal was approved by the Education Secretary. It is thereafter that the appellant was given offer for fresh appointment vide Letter. No. SO (E-V)/1-20/86, dated 18-6-1987 (communicated to the appellant on 1-10-1987) which too was not accepted by him. It is surprising to note that no mention has been made in the summary dated 10- 5-1987 as to what action was taken against the appellant for remaining absent from service for such a long time and yet the proposal for his fresh appointment was made. It is also not known as to how the appellant managed to get a copy of the summary dated 10-5-1987 which is a secret and privileged document.
(ii) The department took no decision for appellant's posting order for such a long time and clearly admitted in the written statement filed in Appeal No.4 of 1988 (Annexure `B') that no final decision had been taken by the department regarding issue of his posting order. These circumstances indicated that the department had not cared to look into the serious case of the appellant's unauthorized absence for more than six years and on the contrary had been favouring him with fresh appointment or by reinstatement orders without considering the pros and cons and ramifications of those orders.
(iii)The in depth examination of the case has revealed that the appellant was reinstated as Junior Clerk on the condition that the period of his absence would be treated as leave without pay and stoppage of three increments from the date of assumption of duty. So far as the appellant's absence from duty is concerned, it is not possible to believe that he had put in serious efforts to join the duty and instead conveniently close to remain absent. As a matter of fact the Department had been asking him time and again to join duty. In this connection Registered Letter No. ODCK/585-86, dated 21-4-1980 may be cited. In the ordinary course of nature he should have been dismissed from service but the department had been gracious enough to offer him the post of clerk as a fresh appointment, which too was not accepted by him. Obviously, the appellant must have had engaged himself in any other occupation/service trade and/or business during the long time of his absence from duty and earned butter and bread and as such he cannot claim pay for that period of absence. As far as the question of stoppage of three increments is concerned, suffice it to say that the Enquiry Officer had taken very lenient view and recommended for award of minor penalty instead of major one. Above all the appellant had consciously accepted the above-noted two conditions for being reinstated in service as per his letter dated 21-5-1992 cited in the impugned order dated 24-5-1992. As such he is stopped from agitating these issues again. Thus, the appellant should thank him stars that he has been re-instated in service despite his wilful long absence from duty.
5. The circumstances of this case clearly bear out that the way in which appellant's case has been handled by the Department has been discouraging and paint a dismal picture. Needless to point out that the wilful and long absence of a Government servant from duty, is certainly not a charge which can be lightly brushed aside in the way the Education Department has done.
6. In view of the circumstances explained above we are not inclined to agree with the contentions raised by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.