AFTAB AHMED Versus DIGITAL COMMUNICATION (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI

DECISION

The appellant was a Lay‑out Designer with the respondent‑company. It appears that in recognition of his work he had been given a number of increments within a few years, and at the relevant time was getting a pay of about 2,700 per month.

2. He was however not heard of by the respondent for a number of days from the 26th of March, 1990. On the 12th of April the respondent had sent a letter calling upon him to report at the Head Office within three days and explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. On the receipt of this letter he had reported for duty on the 15th of April, 1990 and again made himself scarce for weeks at a stretch.

3. On the 12th June, 1990 the respondent had sent him another letter to explain his unauthorised absence for all this period. The appellant had furnished a reply and as the same was not found to be satisfactory a domestic enquiry was ordered against him wherein he had participated. On the receipt of the enquiry report the‑appellant came to be dismissed per letter dated 8‑7‑1990.

4. The appellant had filed a petition after he had sent the requisite grievance notice, and failed to receive any encouraging reply.

5. The appellant was his own witness while Murad Fidai the Deputy Manager Administration appeared on behalf of the respondent.

6. It appears that the father of the appellant had to be operated upon for ulcer trouble on the 28th of April, and was discharged from the Hospital on the 31st of April. The appellant had apprised the respondent about his domestic problems when he had come to the office on the 15th April and it was because of this that his absence from the 26th March up to the 12th of April was condoned and was treated as leave without pay.

7. However the appellant again failed to report for duty for weeks together thereafter. Admittedly he had never sent any request in writing for the grant of leave. All that he has chosen to say is, that he had given a ring to one of his colleagues by the name of Ishrat about the state of his father's health and his problems but he has not been examined as a witness. The appellant has only be meant that he had been let down by him.

8. Be that as it may, since the father had returned home on or about the 31st of March there was no excuse for the appellant not to be in touch with the Office. Certainly his behaviour after the 15th of April till the show‑cause notice was despatched to him on the 12th of June is simply indefensible. It is not given to an employee to sit back at home at his sweet will without asking even for leave. He should have known that he could not remain absent from his office unless he had leave granted to him. His statement at the enquiry and before the Court even clearly show that he had behaved in a very wayward and irresponsible manner.

9. The only argument advanced by Mr. Latif Saghar was that the show -cause notices issued by the respondent would be time‑barred as the charge -sheet in terms of clause 4 of Standing Order 15 had to be issued within a month of the date of the misconduct.

10. I am afraid the argument is simply tenuous. The first part of the absence had earlier been condoned and treated as leave without pay. As for the period from the 15th of April up to the receipt of the second show‑cause notice, he had remained absent all along. The misconduct was a continuing one. It was so on the 15th of April and also on the 12th of June. Invoking the bar of clause (4) can hardly be justified. I am afraid that the appellant had himself asked for trouble and cannot be heard to say that he had been unjustly treated by the respondent.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order is not open to any exception. I will, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.

H.B.T./2222/Lb. S

Appeal dismissed.