GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Health Department, Lahore Versus Dr. SAADIA ASHRAF BHATTI

ORDER

SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.--- The respondent was proceeded against under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 and vide order, dated 15-7-1999 she was dismissed. Her departmental representation not having been responded to, she approached the learned Punjab Service Tribunal. The appeal was partly allowed inasmuch as that the penalty of dismissal was converted into penalty of stoppage of two increments.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the finding of the learned Tribunal that the absence of the respondent was not wilful is not borne out from the record, she remained absent from duty from 5-1-1991 to 25-8-1993 and, therefore, interference of the learned Tribunal was not justified. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, contends that reduction of the penalty was within the competence of the learned Tribunal and no exception could be taken thereto.

3. The submissions have been considered. It will be appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the judgment of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal which gives out the reasons for interference:--

"I have considered the arguments from both sides and also perused the relevant record. The appellant has justified the averments that she was not wilfully absent. There were circumstances which justified her absence on leave and she had submitted application for the grant of leave but without any response from the department. At the same time, the appellant being a civil servant was expected to wait for formal sanction of grant of leave even if the circumstances were beyond her control The fact is also evident that the appellant after the expiry of disputed period came on duty, served the department and no objection was raised about the performance of duty on her part. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal is accepted to the extent that the penalty of dismissal shall stand converted into penalty of stoppage of 2 increments. Resultantly, she will be reinstated in service from the date she was dismissed and the period intervening including the earlier disputed period of absence, shall be treated as leave of the kind due."

Perusal of the above observations of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal shows that it had recorded a clear finding of fact that the respondent was not wilfully absent and application for leave was not responded to by the department. We are of the view that in the circumstances penalty or stoppage of two increments was just, fair and proper. No question of law of public importance is involved. Therefore, petition is dismissed. It is, however, observed that the period during which the respondent did not perform the duty shall be treated as leave without pay. No order as to costs.

H.B.T./G-9/SC Petition dismissed.