JUSTICE (RETD.) ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).--- The facts of this appeal are that the appellant was working as Junior Clerk in the office of the Revenue Officer, Mardan. He absented himself from the duty with effect from 1-12-1990 without any intimation and in consequence thereof disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a show-cause notice on 25-4-1992 and finally by order, dated 7-11---1992 he was dismissed from service. He filed departmental appeal which was rejected by order, dated 13-11-1993, and the appellant was accordingly informed by letter, dated 16-11-1993. He then preferred this appeal before this Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned order has been passed without observing the procedure laid down under the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 as no inquiry was held and no final show-cause notice was issued to the appellant, and that further personal hearing was also not afforded. Therefore, the order is void. It is argued that looking to the charge of absence from duty, dismissal from service imposed on the appellant, was not warranted by law and in the alternate the modification in the quantum of punishment needs consideration.
3. Mr. Nasir Ali, Law Officer, alongwith Mr. Shah Jahan Khan, Revenue Officer, appeared on behalf of the respondents. It is argued that the appellant was given notices from time to time but he could not be served, but when he joined duty for a while, the notices were served upon him but he did not care to reply. Therefore, the respondents had no alternative but to pass the impugned order. It is further argued that the appellant remained absent from duty un authorised for 22 months without intimation or getting his leave sanctioned and he also did not apply for leave during the entire period.
4. The admitted facts are that the appellant remained absent from duty with effect from 1-12-1990 and during the course of hearing, he did not controvert this allegation. The contention of the appellant is that he never informed the respondents about his detention in jail so that they could take cognisance of this fact. He remained absent from 1-12-1990 and was arrested on 22-9-1991 but for 9 months he was out and also remained absent. He has not been able to explain this absence but states that he was earning livelihood. The unauthorised absence for such a long period has been proved. The respondents initiated proceedings under Rule 5 of E&D Rules and there was no necessity of holding regular inquiry. The appellant has not been able to substantiate or justify his unauthorised absence, or show any document that during this long period he ever made any attempt to make application or intimation to the respondents. It was a clear cut case of gross negligence and amounted to misconduct and the impugned order is proper and there is no illegality in the proceedings and order cannot be set aside. However, the quantum of punishment does need consideration. The appellant is a young man of 33 years and there is no charge of corruption and misappropriation, as such dismissal order shall come in his way for seeking employment elsewhere. Therefore, we looking into these considerations, are of the view that punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh and we modify the same into removal from service. The appeal is otherwise dismissed on merits with no order as to costs.