ASJAD HUSSAIN vs CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION) POWER, WAPDA and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the petitioner's removal from service for wilful absence from duty. The petitioner had been absent for four years following the expiry of his sanctioned ex-Pakistan study leave. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that he was discriminated against compared to other employees facing similar charges and contended that his absence was due to medical grounds. The Supreme Court examined the submissions and noted that the petitioner failed to provide a credible explanation for his prolonged unauthorized absence or his failure to resume duty. Consequently, the Court held that no question of law of public importance, as required under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was raised to justify the grant of leave to appeal. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the disciplinary action taken by the department for the unauthorized absence.
- Does an unexplained and prolonged absence from duty after the expiry of sanctioned leave constitute a question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
- Can a civil servant claim discrimination in disciplinary proceedings when they have failed to provide a credible explanation for their unauthorized absence?
- Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.---The petitioner was proceeded against for wilful absence from duty with effect from 8-1-2003 onwards under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000.
Major penalty of removal from service was imposed upon him through order dated 9-9-2006 by the competent authority. His departmental appeal was rejected. The service appeal (Appeal No,601(L)CS/2006) filed by him before Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, was also dismissed, vide impugned judgment dated 4-2-2010. Hence, this petition.
2. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was discriminated against as 'some other employees of the department facing the identical charges have been given different treatment by the departmental authorities. Further that the petitioner after availing ex-Pakistan study leave of 730 days applied for extension in leave on medical ground, but the department after rejecting his reply to the show-cause notice dated 6-5-2006, removed him from service.
3. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and find the petitioner to have absented himself from duty without leave for four years after expiry of his sanctioned ex-Pakistan study leave of 730 days. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner was unable to credibly explain even before us the reasons for absence of the petitioner abroad and for non-joining the service after expiry of ex-Pakistan study leave.
4. In view of the above noted position and in presence of the unexplained and unsanctioned leave of the petitioner, we do not find any question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the. Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for the grant of leave to appeal. In view, thereof, this petition is dismissed and .