The appeal is directed against the decision dated 4-9-1993, rendered by the learned Presiding Officer of Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore, at Ferozewala (Mr. Khalid Mian) dismissing the grievance petition, filed by Muhammad Riaz Khan against Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer, Scarp-IV Circle (having their offices at Canal Bank, Dhrampura, Lahore).
2. Riaz was working as an Electrician, having been employed on 1-7-1974, and he was dismissed from service, vide order dated 14-2-1991, with retrospective effect from 9-1-1985. He states to have fallen ill on 16-12-1984, and to have initially been granted leave from 16-12-1984 to 8-1-1985. He remained continuously sick, as is averred, and to have been sending to his office, leave applications, supported by medical certificates, for to and a half years. On obtaining medical fitness certificate from the Government Hospital, Daska (District Sialkot), he states to have reported for duty on 16-6-1987, but he was not allowed to resume duty, where-after he served a grievance notice (Exh. P'-14) upon the Executive Engineer, Tube-wells on 25-9-1989. Then he filed a grievance petition on 9-3-1990. The same was dismissed by the then Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Mr. Nazir Ahmad Awan, on 19-12-1990 (Exh. R.13). Then he preferred an appeal (Exh. P. 1) on 7-1-1991, it was pending, when the Executive Engineer, Tube-well Operation Division, Scarp IV, Lahore issued to him, on 14-1-1991, a show-cause notice (Exh. P. 2). It was replied by Riaz Khan vide Exh. P. 3 on 24-1- 1991. Although Riaz alleges that he was not served with a charge-sheet and no regular enquiry was held against him, the record reveals that it was not like that. The Enquiry Officer, Mr. Muhammad Rafique Chaudhry, Executive Engineer (Authorised Officer) furnished a report Exh. P. 9 (available at page 157 of the Labour Court's file). Riaz was held guilty of misconduct and was recommended for award of major penalty, by way of dismissal from service, from the date he had absented himself from duty. The 'Authority', Superintending Engineer, Scarp IV Circle, Lahore summoned Riaz Ahmad, for personal hearing, by a letter addressed to him on 2-2-1991 (Exh. P. 5). By an order finally passed on 14-2-1991 (Exh. P.6), Riaz was dismissed from service on having been found to be guilty of wilful absence from duty, over a long period. He was treated to be a Government servant; and as under rule 3.27 of C.S.R., Vol. I, Part I, by reason of unauthorised absence from duty, for a period exceeding five years, a Government servant ceases to be in service, he was treated to have been removed from service, whereupon Riaz withdrew his appeal, pending in this Tribunal on 17-2-1991 (Exh. P. 7).
He then, on 22-2-1991, made a request to the Superintending Engineer for his reinstatement in service, with full back benefits (Exh. P. 8). This, it appears, was treated by Riaz Khan to be in the nature of a grievance notice, as less than a month afterwards, on 9-3-1991, he filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in the Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore, at Ferozewala.
3. In evidence, Muhammad Riaz Khan appeared as his own witness on 16-9-1991 and he was cross- examined on 21-9-1991. The respondents produced Muhammad Yous'of, Sub-Engineer, and Shabbir Hussain, S.D.C. R.Ws. 1 and 2, on 14-11-1991, and Mr. Muhammad Rafique Chaudhry was examined as R.W. 3 on 15-211993. Document, mark 'B' is photo-stat copy of the medical certificate issued by Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Daska, which is to the effect that Riaz had remained under his treatment from 16-12-1984 to 16-6-1987, where-after, as per Exh. P. 22, he reported for duty on 16-6Y 1987.
4. Obviously, he could not have been permitted to perform duty, as he had remained absent from his job for to and a half years. He says that it was medical leave, which was due to him. It is to be noted that during whole span of service one can avail of only six months leave on medical ground.
It is not understandable as to how does Riaz assert his eligibility to that much leave. He had joined service on 1-7-1974 and had proceeded on leave on 16-12-1984. There is also nothing on record in support of his plea that he had remained on medical leave from 16-12-1984 to 16-6-1987. If he had applied for such leave in the, and had been granted leave by his officer, from the to the, or at a stretch, he should have proved it from record. There being no such proof, it will be assumed that he had remained absent from duty continuously for to and a half years without leave. He had absented himself from duty even afterwards. One Dr. Abdul Haq had issued certificates on 15-8- 1987 and 1-12-1989 Exhs.P-23 and 18, stating that Riaz had been suffering from lumbago sciatica and had been advised bed rest from 15-8-1987 to 1-9-1989 and from 1-12-1989 to 31-12-1989. It follows that he was alright for a period of three months, i.e. September to November, 1989. He, however, remained absent from his office ever since 16-12-1984 onwards, for a number of years. He was served with a show-cause notice Exh.P-2 on 14-1-1991. Vide Exh.P-6, he was dismissed from service on 14-2-1991, but with retrospective effect, with effect from 9-1-1985, as his unauthorized absence from duty without leave commenced on 9-1-1985. He had been allowed leave on medical ground from 16-12-1984 till 8-1-1985. Thereafter he claims to have remained continuously indisposed and to have been submitting applications for leave, supported by medical certificates, throughout. On record, however, only to such applications have been tendered.
5. Riaz states that he had been sending leave applications, through the Overseer Incharge.
Muhammad Yousaf, Sub-Engineer has, however, appeared as R.W. 1 and has repudiated this assertion. Shabbir Hussain, S.D.C. Has made his statement as R.W. 2 and Muhammad Rafique Chaudhry, Executive Engineer as R.W.
3. None of them has endorsed the aforesaid claim of the official. They depose to have been in receipt of no leave application and no medical certificate. It is indeed intriguing that he had opted to communicate to his officers his requests for leave through mail, statedly, although he could very well go to is office for the purpose. He was, after all, not suffering from any serious disease, which would have rendered him so weak, so as to confine him to bed. Renal Colic and Lumbago Sciatica are very favourite diseases f doctors, who are in the habit of issuing false certificates. But even if he was genuinely suffering from these ailments, he was capable of moving about and he had been visiting Civil Hospital, Daska, for such treatment, over a long the, and had then been coming to Lahore to have treatment from Doctor Abdul Haq, that to for a long period, from 15-8-1987 to 3142-1989, with a gap of three months, September, October and November, 1989. There was another gap. He claimed to have been completely cured and to have reported for duty in his office on 16-6-1987 (Exh. R-22). Again he fell ill on 15-8-1987 (Exh.P-23). For to months, from 16-6-1987 to 14-8-1987, he was not suffering from any imaginary disease even.
6. As per application Exh.P-22, he states to have been hospitalized at Daska, on falling ill on 16-12- 1984. It has nowhere been explained as to whether he remained in the hospital throughout this period, from 16-12-1984 to 15-6-1987. If it had been a fact, he would certainly have got summoned the hospital record, which is not stated to have been destroyed, even if he had been precluded from examining his medical attendant, Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad, as a witness, on account of his death, having occurred on 20-12-1987, as certified by the M.S., DHQ, Hospital, Daska (Exh.P-19). Had these doctors, or at least one of them, Dr. Abdul Haq, who issued certificates Exhs.P-18 and 23, been produced by Riaz, as a witness, he could be cross-examined by the 'establishment', with a view to elicit the truth about actual nature of the disease, if any, that Riaz had been suffering from. .
7. I must say that anybody, who reads these certificates or is made aware of the long period of stated indisposition/hospitalization of this person, will not believe, even for a second, that there was any truth in the plea. The learned lower Court has rightly observed that Riaz has brazen---facedly perjured himself and he is a confirmed liar, who ought not to be given credence on any score. He had been treated as an absconder by his officers and rightly so. It seems that he had gone abroad and engaged himself in manual labour or service somewhere, in a greed to earn maximum income He says, refusal/rejection of his requests for leave- had never been communicated to him by the office. It was certainly not the obligation of the office to have made efforts to get in touch with him, although it is stated by the respondents that communications were addressed to him at his home, but without any response. As a Government servant it was his bounden duty to have been regular and punctual in the performance of his duties and to have justified his absence from duty, if at all he had fallen prey to some serious disease, preventing him from attending to his duty, for any length of period. He, however, seems to be a crooked and cunning person, who is cleverly trying to shift the burden on to the establishment. It was after all not his private shop, where he could go and which he could leave according to his will; it was a Government office and he was in Government service and he must not have been absent from duty, even for a day. He, however, E displayed culpable negligence and unparalleled carelessness in his conduct as a public servant.
Actually in open Court, in the course of arguments in response to a Court question, he had burst in anger, but unwittingly uttered truth by taking up the stand that when his officers remained largely absent, he to was justified in making an equally woeful display of abhorrable negligence in attending to his public duty. Well, there is a limit of every thing, but the appellant's stubbornness knew no bounds, and certain doctors, who seemed to have been approached or bribed, were readily available for coming to his rescue and for untruthfully certifying that he had actually been ailing.
8. Certificates were issued by these doctors afterwards and not on commencement of treatment; and I would regard the same just waste papers. Who on earth would lend ears to these manifestly false claims of the official about his pretended illness and who will accord any sanctity or credence to these outrageously bogus certificates, so stupidly drawn up.
9. Actually no enquiry into such shabbiest conduct of the official was needed, as absence from duty, stretching over several years, was not denied. Being a public servant, as already observed, he could justifiable be treated to have ceased to be in Government employment, by virtue of Rule 3.27, C.3.R., Vol. 1. A probe, however, also was made into his claim and the justification he was trying to put forth for his unusually long absence from duty, without leave, was found to be wholly baseless.
He was monstrously at fault and by no stretch of imagination could he justify his retention in service. He was, therefore, rightly removed from service.
10. He had met failure in the first round of litigation in the Labour Court and the Labour Tribunal; and on withdrawal of his appeal, he had served a grievance notice afresh upon his officers. He once again could not succeed in his grievance petition, the learned Labour Court having dismissed it, by rendering an exhaustive, elaborate and very well-reasoned decision. His appeal, preferred before this Tribunal, has absolutely no merit; and the same is, therefore, also dismissed, with costs throughout.