PROJECT DIRECTOR, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, LALAMUSA Versus NIAZ ALI

The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 12‑8‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. According to the charge‑sheet, the allegations against the respondent were that he did not operate the tractor to meet the target, that on 3‑9‑1983 the Inspector had asked him to do ploughing work booked for him but he did not comply with the order and applied for leave on 19‑9‑1983 and left the headquarter without obtaining prior sanction of the leave and last that he had obtained medical certificate from the Medical Officer without obtaining any docket. Rules 2(a), 3(a) and 3(b) of the Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1975 were applied. Only one charge which is to the effect that the respondent did not do ploughing work in compliance with the order dated 3‑9‑1983, amounts to misconduct. As mentioned above, the allegation is that instead of doing work in compliance with the order dated 3‑9‑1983 the respondent applied for leave on 19‑9‑1983. It is to be seen whether failure on the part of the respondent to do ploughing work from 4‑9‑1983 to 19‑9‑1983 was proved in the inquiry or not. P. W.1 deposed during the inquiry that on 3‑9‑1983 the respondent was asked to drive the tractor but he did not do so and sent application for leave and thereafter had been sending applications supported by medical certificates. It is not said by the witness on what date the first application was received and what were the dates of the subsequent applications. If the respondent applied for leave with effect from 4‑9‑1983 then it is wrong to say that he intentionally did not comply with the order, dated 3‑9‑1983. He was not charge sheeted for remaining absent without leave. If he had fallen ill soon after he was ordered on 3‑9‑1983 to do ploughing work then it A cannot be said that he wilfully disobeyed the order. Needless to say that an ailing person, who has also applied for leave, cannot be said to have refused to work. Vide order, copy of which is Ex. P‑12, leave with effect from 22‑9‑1983 upto 19‑1‑1984 was sanctioned on medical ground. This shows that the appellant admitted the illness of the respondent. Since there is no charge of absence from 4‑9‑1983 to 19‑9‑1983 and for 20th and 21st September 1983, it appears that either his leave for the said period had also been sanctioned or he had been attending to his duties. Since PW‑1 during the inquiry stated that the respondent had been sending applications for leave after 3‑9‑1983, it appears that he was ill even during that period. B So the failure on his part to plough the land from 4‑9‑1983 did not amount to wilful neglect of duty and disobedience of the order dated 3‑9‑1983.

3. Inefficiency does not amount to misconduct as no element of wilful dereliction of duty is contained. If the output of an employee is low or less than the target due to inefficiency, it does not mean that he wilfully shirked or wilfully failed to perform his duties. Consulting a doctor for illness and obtaining medical certificate from him without getting a docket is not misconduct according to the C Disciplinary Rules of 1975. It is thus clear that the respondent did not commit any misconduct. His grievance petition therefore, was rightly accepted.

4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dimissed.

A.E. /477/Lb. P Appeal dismissed.