GHULAM BARI Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT
S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN)‑ Messrs Ghulam Bari and Muhammad Hafiz Javaid have filed these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which they have impleaded Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Lahore and Messrs Jaffar Brothers Ltd., as respondents.
2. By virtue of these appeals they have prayed that the orders, dated 3rd October, 1978, straightway recalling the appellants back from deputation and that of dismissal from service be declared as male fide, illegal and ultra vires.
3. As both these appeals emanate from the same impugned order and facts are identical, therefore, we will dispose of both the appeals with this single judgment.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were serving in the Agriculture Department and sent on deputation to Messrs Jaffar Brothers Ltd. initially for a period of one year w. e. f. 16th June, 1977, under the orders of the Government of the Punjab. The appellants started serving with the said Messrs Jaffar Brothers Ltd. in accordance with the above' mentioned order of Government. On 4th April, 1978 Messrs Jaffar Brothers Ltd. made a request to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore, that the period of deputation of the appellants be extended which was going to expire on 15th June, 1978. This request was accepted by the Government and a letter was issued on. 14th April, 1978 giving permission of extension of deputation to the appel lants for another one year w. e. f. 16th June, 1978. On 3rd October, 1978 the Punjab Government issued an order by which they recalled for duty in the Agriculture Department with immediate effect, the appellant as well as 10 more who were serving on deputation with different firms. Messrs Jaffar Brothers Ltd. made a further request to retain them but the same request was not acceded to. As the appellants did not report for duty in compliance of the said order, show‑cause notice were issued in their names as to show cause as to why a major penalty should not be imposed upon them for wilful absence from duty. These show‑cause notices were served upon the appellants who reached the office of Enquiry Officer but did not file any explanation and went back when they found that the officer was not present in the office due to holiday. The competent autho rity passed the impugned orders in July, 1979 and awarded major penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect. The appellants filed review petition before the next competent authority but the same was rejected. Hence these appeals.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the departmental representative and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. The main grievance of the appellants before us is that the period of deputation of the appellants could not be terminated at the will of the competent authority/Government, once they were allowed to work with the Firm with which they were on deputation. It has been further submitted that the proceedings taken against the appellants were ex parte and they were not associated with the enquiry so conducted by the Enquiry Officer, It has been finally argued that the competent authority should have given them the opportunity of personal hearing. As the respondent failed to do so, the impugned orders are void.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has stoutly resisted all these claims of the appellants by submitting that the Govern ment was competent to withdraw its employees) at any time from the borrowing agency(s) and the failure of the appellants to associate them selves with the enquiry when they bad knowledge that the same was being conducted against them, would tantamount to their refusal to join such proceedings and will be an act of clear misconduct on their part.
7. We have given our anxious thought to all the arguments so raised by the parties and find that the Government is fully competent to terminate the period of deputation of its employee, when it is felt that the work of Government is suffering due to the paucity of the officer in the Department. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show any rule or instructions to the contrary which should persuade us to hold that t he Government was helpless in the matter and had to wait till the expiry of their tenure of deputation. With regard to the grievance of the appellants that they have not been associated with the enquiry proceedings, it would be sufficient to say that their non‑association was wilful on their part as they were duly served with the show‑cause notice and it was within their knowledge that the enquiry was being conducted against them. The attitude of the appellants by just making a curtesy call on the Enquiry Officer and not to pursue the matter further, would show that they were least interested in the enquiry proceedings, so initiated against them and were well‑contented with their service in the private firm. Due to lack of response on their part the 'Secretary, Agriculture/Government had no other alternative but to proceed against them under the rules and to award major penalty on account of their wilful absence from duty. .
8. This is a matter of common knowledge that persons who go on deputation with the private firms draw much more emoluments and enjoy much better facilities as compared to their stay in the Government service. The fact of the matter is that the appellants are still with Messrs Jaffar Brothers Ltd. and it seems that their efforts to revive their Government service is only a matter of academic interest for them or a safeguard for future eventualities whereas they are fully contented with their lots.
9. In view of the above we have no hesitation to hold that the appel lants have defied the orders of respondent No. 1 and have wilfully absen ted themselves from duty to which they were called upon by their Department and thus penalty of dismissal from service so imposed upon them by the competent authority, cannot be declared unjustified or illegal.
10. The result is we dismiss the appeals as being without any merits. However, parties shall bear their own costs.
A. E. Appeals dismissed.