' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---Brief facts of this appeal are that the appellant Mr. Taj Muhammad was appointed as Auditor on 14-6-1982. He was promoted as Senior Auditor with effect from 1-7-1983 in B-11 and was posted in the office of the Director, Audit Defence Services, Rawalpindi. He applied for 120 days leave from 8-8-1988 to 7-12-1988 and was sanctioned by competent Authority. He was supposed to resume duty on 8-12-1988 but he submitted another application for extension of leave from 8-12-1988 to 6-1-1989 on account of sickness of his wife which was sanctioned by the department. He again applied for extension of leave from 7-1-1989 to 21-8-1989, but the leave was not sanctioned and according to him he did not receive any information. It is argued that the appellant sent reminder but in spite of that he did not get any response. It is stated that he approached the department in the last week of January, 1993 and wanted to resume duty and was informed that he had already been removed from service vide Office Order dated 16-9-1989 on the allegation of unauthorised absence. He filed departmental appeal dated 2-2-1993 and the same was rejected by order dated 2-10-1994, whereafter he preferred this appeal.
2. Mr. Sh. Riazul Haq, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the absence was not deliberate as appellant could not assume duty due to sickness of his wife and had submitted medical certificates to the department. It is contended that neither regular inquiry was conducted nor proper procedure was followed while removing the appellant from service. He has relied on 1993 PLC (C.S.) 1070 and 1994 PLC (C.S.) 495 and submitted that in the similar circumstances lenient view was taken and only increment was stopped. Therefore, the case of the appellant is also on the same footing and deserves consideration. Alongwith memo. Of appeal the appellant has also filed application for condonation of delay and it is argued that after the rejection of departmental appeal he has preferred this appeal within time as his departmental appeal was not disposed of as being time-barred, therefore, it cannot be struck down on the point of limitation. In support of his contentions, he has relied on 1993 PLC (C.S.) 1455.
3. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents despite notice nor is there any request for adjournment. The department has also not filed comments, therefore, we ,proceed to hear this appeal ex parte against the respondents under Rule 19(2) of the Service Tribunals (Procedure)
Rules, 1974.
4. The admitted position in this appeal is that the appellant was supposed to join duty on 7-1-1989 after availing of the sanctioned leave, but he sent an application for extension of leave till 21-8- 1989 on the ground of illness of his wife but leave was not granted as according to the appellant he.
Did not receive any reply and in these circumstances it was proper that he should have immediately joined the duty. The matter does not end here. Even after the self-granted leave, he was supposed to join duty on 22-8-1989 and on query it was stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had not sent any application for extension of leave after 21-8-1989 and for the first time he went to resume duty in January, 1993 i.e, after more than 3 years. Under the Revised Leave Rules, 1980, it is the discretion of the competent authority to grant or not to grant leave and the civil servant is not supposed to avail of the leave just after submitting the leave application unless and until it is sanctioned by the competent Authority. The appellant remained absent without sanctioned leave for more than 7 months in the first instance and thereafter 4 more than 3 years and he did not bother to send any application or went to resume duty. Therefore, the authorities had no option but to take action according to law and he was rightly removed from service because it was a clear case of wilful absence which amounted to misconduct, and such a contumacious act of the appellant cannot make out a case for any concesssion. The appellant has not filed copy of the original order whereby he was removed from service, although in the memo.
Of appeal. He has in clear terms, stated in paragraph 5 that in January, 1993 he was informed that he had been removed from service on the charge of unauthorised absence vide order dated 16-9- 1989 but there is nothing on record that on knowing this fact he ever applied for copy of the original removal order. We have also gone through the contents of the departmental appeal made on 2-2- 1993, wherein under paragraph 'f he has stated as under:-- "Instead of regularising my absence period I was removed from service with effect from 16-4-1989 vide office order PT-II No,49, dated 16-9-1989 in the changes of unauthorised absence."
' He was fully conscious about the order of his removal from service but he did not file the copy of the original order, The explanation of the learned counsel for the appellant is that appellant had gone to office and had seen the punishment order but he was not supplied the copy thereof. We are not inclined to accept this submission that when the appellant had excess to the copy of the impugned order he could have applied in writing for supply of copy of the original order but there is nothing of this sort on the record that he ever made any effort to get the copy of the order.
Therefore, under section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the appeal suffers legal infirmity and he has not deliberately made available the copy of the original order.
5. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal having no merit is dismissed with costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.