MUHAMMAD ILYAS SHEIKH vs SECRETARY/CHAIRMAN, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
The petitioner, a government employee, sought an extension of leave for three years after his initial ex-Pakistan leave for his wife's medical treatment expired. The department refused the extension, yet the petitioner failed to resume his duties. Consequently, the department initiated disciplinary proceedings, dispensed with a regular inquiry, and imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner's departmental appeal and subsequent service appeal were both unsuccessful. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the dismissal, alleging procedural irregularities. The Court held that the petitioner was bound to resume duty upon the refusal of his leave extension. Furthermore, because the petitioner was out of the country, he was unavailable for a personal hearing, and thus could not claim a violation of natural justice or procedural law regarding the inquiry. The Court concluded that the petition failed to raise any substantial question of law of public importance, rendering it outside the scope of Article 212 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
- Can a government employee claim a violation of natural justice if they are unavailable for a hearing due to being abroad?
- Does the failure to resume duty after the refusal of a leave extension justify disciplinary action?
- Does a service matter involving unauthorized absence raise a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Article 212, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The petitioner after having obtained ex-Pakistan leave w,e,f, 20th July, , 2001 to 17-9-2001 on account of the indisposition of his wife did not join the duty on the expiry of the leave period but requested for three years further leave from 17-9-2001. This request was disallowed by the department and despite the petitioner did not join the duty. Resultantly, show- cause notice was issued and while dispensing with the regular inquiry, major penalty from service to the petitioner was imposed by the department vide order dated 3-6-2002. The departmental appeal also could not succeed. And this remains the result of his service appeal as well.
2. We are not convinced, if any illegality has been committed by the department in proceedings against the petitioner particularly in the circumstances, when he after the refusal of the extension of leave did not resume his duty which he was bound to do, besides, he himself was not available for personal hearing because he was out of Pakistan as per his own request for the extension, thus, he cannot make a grouse that any rule of natural justice or the requirement of law regarding notice or hearing, or about the regular inquiry has been infringed. This petition does not raise, any substantial question of law having nexus to public importance. Therefore, it is not covered by Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Therefore, it has no merit and is hereby dismissed. .