MISBAH ULLAH KHAN (MEMBER): --The facts of the case, in brief are that the appellant Mr. Javed Ahmed, was working as Tracer in WAPDA, when he was removed from service under the impugned order, dated 14-3-1992. The disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were started under WAPDA (E&D) Rules, with issuance of Explanation Letter, dated 29-10-1991 that he remained absent from duty from 6-7-1991 wilfully and unauthorisedly. The appellant submitted his reply that due to his mother illness, he could not attend office, and requested for extension of leave by sending telegrams. The explanation was not found satisfactory and, therefore, show-cause notice, dated 17-12-1991 was served on the appellant, to which he replied and submitted that due to ailment of his mother for which he had submitted medical certificate, was not able to attend office. The appellant, has also stated that he was implicated in false case under Hudood Ordinance for recovery of heroin from his possession. He was detained in police custody from 17-1-1992 to 1-2- 1992 and in jail from 1-2-1992 to 8-9-1992. He was released from jail by order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur on 30-8-1992 when he reached office he was informed that he had been removed from service. He preferred a departmental appeal, dated 29-11-1992, which remained unreplied. He then filed this appeal on 21-3-1991.
2. The respondents have filed objections and have given facts of the case. It has been stated that the appellant was absent from duty w.e.f. 6-7-1991 wilfully on the pretext of his ailing mother, for which he submitted at a belated stage medical certificate from a private doctor. Telegrams were sent to him to resume duty but he failed to comply with the orders. He was issued a show---cause notice dated 17-12-1991, but he did not join duty. In the meantime the Assistant Director, Narcotics, Sukkur informed the Chief Engineer, Theormal Power Station, Sukkur that appellant had been caught red-handed with one Kg. Heroin on 17-1-1992 and he was under police custody. The appellant was also found involved in selling narcotics in WAPDA Colony, Guddu. It has further been stated that the appellant never reported for duty. The impugned order of removal dated 14-3-1992 was despatched to the appellant on his given address, and he has admitted this fact in paras. 4 and 5 of the memo of appeal.
We have gone through the case carefully and we are of the view that the appellant remained absent from duty w.e.f. 6-7-1991 till he was removed from service. It was unauthorised and wilful absence because there is not a single paper to show that he ever applied for leave, got prior permission to proceed on long leave. He enjoyed leave on the pretext of his mother's illness which plea does not stand proved as there is no medical certificate for such a long absence. Actually, as reported by the Assistant Director Narcotics, he was involved in Narcotics trafficking. He did not care to resume duty in spite of several telegrams sent to him. He never informed the office about his detention in police lock-up and jail, and he had hidden true facts of his guilt. According to WAPDA, since the criminal case was pending for adjudication, they did not take into consideration that event while passing the impugned order, but counselling the unauthorised and deliberate and wilful absence of the appellant for such a long period, removed him from service vide impugned order, as stated above, and if it is unexceptionable.
3. It is also worth noting that the departmental appeal of the, appellant was filed on 29-11-1992 beyond the period of limitation i.e. Sixty days, and as such it was hopelessly time-barred, and there being no final rejection order, the appeal too is time-barred as laid down by Supreme Court in PLD 1990 SC 951.
4. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal fails on merits as well as on point of limitation and is accordingly dismissed with costs.