' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated 3-5-1994 whereby the appeal filed by him against his dismissal from service was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner, a constable in the Islamabad Police, was dismissed from service for absence from duty w.e.f_ 22-12-1992 to 17-8-1993, after following the procedure laid down under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, as adopted by the Capital Territory Police. The departmental appeal filed by him against his dismissal was also dismissed by the Inspector-General of Police, Islamabad vide order dated 5-1-1994 wherein, after providing an opportunity of hearing and perusing the material available on record, it was observed that the petitioner was a habitual absentee, in that, he had been punished no less than 15 times for absence without leave. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Service Tribunal was also dismissed.
3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was absent from duty from 22-12-1992 to 17-8-1993. He pleaded before the Tribunal that he could not report for duty due to illness and in support of his plea, he placed reliance on medical certificates. The Tribunal, after perusing the material on record, recorded a finding of fact that the medical certificates were of no avail to the petitioner firstly because the dates were tampered with and secondly, they related to his treatment as an outdoor patient. It was further observed that even if it is assumed that the petitioner was ill during the relevant period, he was admittedly an outdoor patient and not admitted in the hospital for treatment, but he took no step to inform the department about his illness either directly or through any relative or friend.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show that the alleged illness of the petitioner during the relevant time was of such a nature that he was prevented from communication with others for informing the Department regarding it. The petitioner has been rightly found to be guilty of unauthorised and wilful absence from duty after thorough scrutiny of the material on record. Notwithstanding that, the Tribunal took a lenient view by modifying the penalty of dismissal into that of removal from service, which calls for no interference. Leave is, therefore, refused.