M. JAVED BUTTAR, J.- Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk on 27.9.1995, in the office of-the Director of Staff Development Punjab Lahore and as per terms and conditions of his service he reported for the duty in time on 10.10.1995. This fact is admitted by the respondents in para 3 of the parawise comments. On the asking he also furnished the medical certificate dated 14.10.1995, in time. In the meanwhile a directive dated 10.10.1995 was issued from the Office of Deputy Secretary (Rules), S&GAD, Government of the Punjab Lahore to All Administrative Secretaries, All Commissioners of Divisions, All Heads of Attached Departments and All Deputy Commissioners in the Punjab wherein the above-mentioned officers were intimated that the Chief Minister has been pleased to order cancellation of all appointments made in BS-15 after 15th September, 1995, and the above-referred four heads were directed to submit a compliance/action report to the said Deputy Secretary within three days. The grievance of the petitioner is that in view of this directive of the Chief Minister the petitioner was hot permitted to continue with his job and in fact he was informed that in view of the above directive his appointment has been cancelled. Being aggrieved thereof the petitioner has preferred this Constitutional petition in this Court on 3.3.1996. The report and comments were called for from the respondents. Respondent No. 1/Director Staff Development Punjab, Lahore, in his parawise comments has narrated that the Department so far has not passed any order of the cancellation of petitioner's appointment in obedience of the Chief Minister's directive and in these circumstances it is not explained as to how and Why the petitioner is not being allowed to continue with his service from the last, two years. Some objection has been raised that the petitioner became absent without leave but on a query made by this Court, the learned Additional Advocate General has informed that no adverse order has so far been passed against the petitioner by the Department due to petitioner's absence without leave. In these circumstances the possibility cannot be ruled out that the allegations so levelled by the petitioner are true and the petitioner from the very beginning has been stopped illegally from continuing his service.
2. In view of the above and in view of the fact that nothing exists on the, file to presume that the petitioner is not in service, it is declared that the petitioner is employee of the respondents and cannot be stopped from attending his office. This, however, shall not mean that the respondents cannot proceed against him for his alleged absence without leave and in such an eventuality the respondents shall , issue a notice to the petitioner in accordance with the terms and conditions of his, service and the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to explain his absence. It may be mentioned here that his absence from 3.3.1996, onward has been explained in this Constitutional petition because from that date the respondents are not , permitting him to join the duties and are opposing this petition and never said in ' Court that the petitioner could join the duty at any time.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.