' ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).---Having been aggrieved by removal order dated 17-7-1995 with effect from 16-7-1995, on the grounds of remaining unauthorisedly absent from his duties, the appellant, Ehsan-urRashid, preferred a departmental appeal to the Prime Minister of Pakistan which remained unresponded to despite lapse of 90 days -- hence this appeal on 13-12-1995 with a prayer that the impugned order be set aside/modified with full back benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant initially joined Ministry of Railways as LDC (B-5) on 23-1-1976 was promoted to the post of UDC (B-7) with effect from 13-3-1980, confirmed to the post of UDC on 24-1-1991 and further promoted to the post of Assistant (B-11) with effect from 26-11- 1984 and confirmed on the same post on 28-5-1995.
3. It is submitted that the appellant got a message on 9-14995 from Karachi intimating him that one of his relative was injured there during riots. He got this message at late hours, therefore, he left for Karachi without intimating his superiors. He has further stated that during his stay at Karachi one of his in-law was shot dead which caused him to extend his stay and not to inform office. The appellant returned to Islamabad on 30-3-1995. He was allowed to resume his duties on 20-4-1995.
He was served with show-cause notice on 20-4-1995 alongwith statement of allegations which are reproduced as under: "(1) You remained unauthorisedly absent from duty with effect from 10-1-1995 to 29-3-1995 (79 days) without any intimation.
(2) You are in habit of slipping away from duty with intervals and remaining absent from duty for many weeks.
(3) You have not improved your conduct in spite of repeated warnings/punishments."
' He replied to the show-cause notice on 18-5-1995, which was not found satisfactory and was, therefore, removed from service with effect from 16-7-1995. He filed departmental appeal to the competent Authority on 6-8-1995 which remained unresponded.
4. Mr. Fazal Hussain Chaudhry, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant. On the other hand Mr. Khalid Abbas, Federal Counsel represented the respondent-department alongwith Mr. Muhammad Amjad, Deputy Director for the department.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the proceedings undertaken by the respondent-department under Rule 5 were not justified. He asserted that the full-fledged normal inquiry should have been conducted to arrive at the truth and to know the actual position causing his extension of stay. He further pleaded that the appellant was not afforded personal hearing. He was of the opinion that while proceeding against the appellant under rule 5 of the Government Servants (E&D) 'Rules, 1973, cogent reasons should have been recorded for not conducting the inquiry under Rule 6 ibid. Moreover, he pleaded that, the appellant in his reply to the show-cause notice had prayed to be excused for his lapse and had undertaken to avoid such action in future.
This should have been considered sympathetically by The competent authority while passing the order of punishment of removal from service. He pleaded that keeping in view the long service of 19 years of the appellant, a lenient view might be taken into consideration as he has been awarded harsh punishment as comparative to quantum of his guilt.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent-department on the other hand contended that the appellant's conduct was not in accordance with the requirement of service. His In charge had reported that he absconded his duty on 10-1-1995. The Controlling Officer too had reported that the appellant was habitual absconder. Although, the appellant was issued memo on 16-1-1995 to resume his duty within three days on the receipt of the letter, nevertheless he did not bother about and remained unauthorisedly absent with effect from 10-1-1995 to 29-3-1995 and returned on 30- 3-1995. Though he stated that his one relative was injured and later on other shot dead during riots in Karachi. But he neither produced any documentary proof to that effect nor did he reveal their names and their relationship with him. Above all appellant failed to make the replies to the charges so levelled against him in the statement of allegation provided to him along with show-cause notice. The learned counsel for the respondent-department, therefore, concluded under the circumstances a doubt is created in the mind of one, if at all such a thing actually took place. After finding his reply unsatisfactory, he was imposed major penalty of removal from service. He countered the claim of the appellant that he was not provided the opportunity of personal hearing.
7. We have heard both the parties and have gone through the documents available on the record.
The perusal of the documents shows that the appellant has been in the habit of remaining absent without obtaining its prior approval by the competent Authority. The allegations as framed against him had not been replied, shows that he has no reply to make in other words he had admitted them. He has admitted his lapse, while making a reply to show-cause notice and further had requested to excuse him with the promise that he would not act as such in future. The record reveals that he has rightly been proceeded against under Rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, as it was proved beyond doubt that he remained wilfully absent, and admitted such a lapse vide reply to show-cause notice and did not bother about to intimate his absence to his superiors over a period which comprises of 79 days. It is unbelievable if he did not have few moments at his disposal either inform his superiors or to make an application to obtain proper leave.
8. If such a habit of official is not curbed it would provide similar chance to other to follow the suit.
In the interest of official discipline, the appellant cannot be allowed to go unpunished.
9. Although we feel that the 'appellant does not deserve any sympathy for his habit to remain absent without informing the authority but keeping in view his large family of which he is the lone bread winner and has long service of 19 years, taking a lenient view purely on humanitarian grounds, we set aside the impugned order and reinstate the appellant and modify the impugned order by covering his major penalty of removal from service to that of minor penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. However, his absence will remain without pay.
10. No order as to costs. Parties be informed. .