Rana MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (HEADQUARTERS)
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which rejected the petitioner's appeal concerning the treatment of his absence from duty for one year and twenty-seven days as extraordinary leave without pay. The core legal question involves the applicability of service rules regarding leave extension and the finality of an unappealed censure order based on unauthorized absence. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit as the petitioner failed to challenge the underlying order of censure, which consequently became final, and that the invoked service rules do not support the petitioner's case. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that no substantial question of public importance was raised to warrant interference under the Constitution. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Whether an unappealed order of censure based on unauthorized absence becomes final?
- Can a consequential order treating absence as extraordinary leave without pay be challenged when the foundational censure order remains unchallenged?
- Does a petition regarding the treatment of leave periods raise a substantial question of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 3-2-1980, whereby the appeal directed against the order of the Superintending Engineer (Head--quarters) Irrigation, Central Region, Lahore, whereby the absence from duty of the petitioner, for a period of one year 27 days was reckoned as extra--ordinary leave with pay, was rejected.
2. This petition came up for bearing on 10-2-1981 on which date no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the petition was dismissed in default. The petitioner has submitted an application for restoration of the said petition and for the reasons given therein we restore the petition and proceed to hear it on the merits.
3. The petitioner on 3-1-1977, was granted 4 months' ex-Pakistan leave on "private affairs", namely, to take his daughter to Dubai to settle her there, as her husband was working there. It is his case that he fell ill in Dubai and applied for extension of leave, in the first instance for one month. This application was supported by a medical certificate and although he received no intimation that this application was allowed, he did not return and instead submitted eight further applications, each time duly supported by a medical certificate, for extension of leave. In this way he had applied for leave to cover his stay abroad which lasted for a period of 1 year 27 days. However, none of the applications for leave was ever granted.
4. On his return to Pakistan, tile petitioner was charge-sheeted fox remaining absent without leave and on that account was administered a censure anti the period of 1 year 27 days was treated as extraordinary leave without pay. The petitioner did not challenge the order of censure by filing any appeal against it but filed an appeal to question the decision treating his absence as an extraordinary leave without pay and relied upon rule 8.1 of the C. S: R. (Punjab), Volume I, Part I.
5. The learned Service Tribunal held that the order regarding censure no having been appealed against the same had become final. This censure was obviously based on the assumption that the petitioner was absent without leave. Hence his attempt to challenge the consequential order of treating the period of absence as extraordinary leave without pay, was not open to objection. 1t also held that the rule 8.15 of the C. S. R. (Punjab), Volume 1, Part I, was not applicable.
6. Mr. Sardar A. Khalid, in support of this petition, has again relied on rule 8.15 of the C. S. R. (Punjab), Volume I, Part I and after going through it we are of the view that it is not of any avail to the petitioner and rather a it goes against him. In any case, no substantial question of public importance is raised in this case and, therefore, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 212 of the Constitution.
7. This petition fails and is dismissed hereby.
Cited by 1 case
- Sh. NAZIR AHMAD And Another vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB 1986 PLC (C.S.) 774