This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question Office Order No. 73, dated 21-1-1989, passed by the Cantonment Executive Officer, Lahore, whereby the services of the petitioner were dispensed with w.e.f the date of his absence from duty, i.e. 29-10- 1988 in the Cantonment Board, and the Letter No. 3576/5960, dated 16-12-1989, issued by the Cantonment Executive Officer, Lahore, informing the petitioner that the appeal filed by him on 18-2- 1989 against his termination from service has been rejected by the Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Lahore Region, Lahore Cantt.
2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner was employed on 1-6-1983 as L.D.C. Births and Deaths under the Cantonment Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Lahore Cantt. (hereinafter called the Cantonment Board). Unfortunately due to petitioner's illness he was unable to perform his duties.
Consequently, he was allowed medical leave for two weeks w.e.f. 1-7-1988 to 14-7-1988 and on expiry thereof, he applied for four months' leave on medical grounds. He was, however, allowed medical leave for one month w.e.f. 15-7-1988 to 13-8-1988 vide Cantonment Board's Office Order No. 633, dated 19-7-1988. He was also required to appear before the Medical Board constituted by the Cantonment Board, but he failed to do so on the ground that his disease could only be cured by a competent Hakim. Consequently, the Cantonment Board called for his explanation for his absence from duty with effect from 29-10-1988 vide Office Letter No. 3376/10316, dated 20-11-1988, through registered post. He failed to give any reply, therefore, the notice was published in the local daily newspaper. This was followed by- a final show-cause notice dated 4-1-1989. The petitioner in his reply dated 8-1-1989 took the plea that he was seriously ill and unable to report on duty and begged for mercy. The concluding portion of his reply reads thus:-- His reply was not found satisfactory. Consequently, he was dismissed from service on 29-10-1988.
Appeal filed by him against his termination was also rejected and he was intimated accordingly by the Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Lahore Region, Lahore Cantt. Vide his Letter No.25/1/LRC/RD/LR, dated 9-12-1989 and the letter dated 16-12-1989, sent by the Cantonment Executive Officer, Lahore, which have been impugned in these proceedings.
3. Ch. Mushtaq Masood, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that no enquiry was held by the Cantonment Board into the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the impugned order is, therefore, violative of the principles of natural justice as well as rule 50 of the Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954, which makes it incumbent upon the Cantonment Board to hold an enquiry into the charges levelled against a Cantonment Servant before he is removed from service. He further argued that the penalty imposed is too harsh having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the material available on record.
5. It is true that under rule 50 of the Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954, no order of discharge, dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction (other than an order based on facts which have led to his conviction in a criminal Court) can be passed against a Cantonment servant unless he has informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded adequate opportunity of being heard and defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action against a Cantonment servant is to be precisedly stated in the form of charges to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. He is also entitled to put in a written statement of his defence within a reasonable time and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires and the competent authority of the Cantonment Board so directs, an oral enquiry is to be held by the Enquiry Officer as may be appointed by the appointing authority for the purpose. Here in the final show-cause notice admittedly received by the petitioner, it was stated with particularity as follows:--- "Whereas you are continuously absent from your duty w.e.f. 29-10-1988 and you were called upon vide this officer Letter No.3576/10316, dated 20-11-1988 sent to you through registered A.D. Post requiring you to resume your duty immediately and to explain your position in writing within three days of the receipt thereof as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you under the provisions of P.C.S.R. 1954. Whereas you failed to resume your duty or submit your explanation.
Whereas again a notice was published in the local newspaper on 15-12-1988 requiring you to resume your duty within seven days of the publication of the said notice and explain the reasons of your absence and whereas it was also mentioned in the said notice that failing above, you will be discharged from Cantonment Bard service and no representation in this regard will be acceptable.
But once again you failed to respond."
6. The petitioner was asked to give reasons for his absence within seven days of the receipt of the notice. The petitioner admittedly received the show---cause notice and gave his reply in which it was inter alia stated that his illness could not be cured by the doctors and could only be handled by a Hakim. He, however, did not desire to be heard in person.
7. Since the allegations levelled against the petitioner were admitted, oral enquiry into the charges levelled against him was not called for and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Clearly, the impugned order of termination does not suffer from infirmity warranting interference in these proceedings. As to quantum of punishment, it was for Cantonment Board to consider and this Court, in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, cannot substitute its decision for that of domestic Tribunal in the matter of imposition of penalty.
Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs as the respondents have been proceeded ex parte.