KHUSHAL KHAN vs MANAGER, MILITARY DAIRY FARM, MALIR CANTT KARACHI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal from service. The petitioner, a daily wage worker at the Military Dairy Farm, Malir, was transferred to Ruk, Sukkur, but failed to assume duty, remaining absent despite multiple notices and a published show-cause warning. The core legal question concerned the legality of the petitioner's dismissal from service on grounds of unauthorized absence and whether he was denied a proper opportunity of being heard. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's unauthorized absence from his new station of posting remained unexplained, as his medical certificates covered only a later period, rendering his absence unjustified. The Court affirmed the dismissal and refused leave to appeal, establishing that failure to report to a transferred duty station coupled with prolonged unauthorized absence justifies disciplinary action and dismissal from service.
- Whether an employee's failure to report to a transferred duty station justifies dismissal from service after due notice?
- Can an employee claim denial of a hearing when multiple notices and a show-cause warning are issued for unauthorized absence?
- Whether medical certificates covering a later period can justify prior unexplained absence from duty?
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--The petitioner, a daily Cooly at Military Dairy Farm, Malir Cantt was transferred to Military Dairy Farm, Ruk, Sukkur per Movement Order, dated 23-6-1984 given verbally by respondent No. 1. The petitioner did not resume the duty at the new station at Ruk. His absence was noticed and he was directed by the Manager, Military Dairy Farm Ruk vide letters, dated 4th August, 22nd September, 23rd September, 3rd October and 3rd November, 1981 to report for duty addressed to the petitioner at his home address in Abbottabad where he had gone unauthorisedly.
The petitioner, however, remained absent. A show-cause notice was got published by the Manager, Ruk Military Farm on 9-2-1982 warning the petitioner to resume duty within 15 days failing which ex parte action would be taken against him. The petitioner did not respond and he was, consequently, dismissed from service and a notice to this effect was published on 26-3-1982. On 18-4-1982 the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal which remained unreplied. Thereafter he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal on 2-6-1982 but the same was dismissed vide the impugned order, dated 27-3-1984.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service is illegal as the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard; that the petitioner has been removed from service without considering the documents filed by him and without giving him a show-cause notice; that the petitioner had requested the respondent No. 1 by application, dated 29-6-1981 for 10 days sick leave which was granted with effect from 30-6-1981 to 9-7-1981. The learned counsel further contended that petitioner's demand for issuance of a proper Transfer Order or Authority Order for moving him from Military Dairy Farm, Malir to Ruk was a legitimate demand and such an order should have been supplied to him positively.
3. We have examined the contention raised by the learned counsel and have also gone through the impugned judgment. We doubt the genuineness of the medical certificates purported to have been issued by the Medical Officer, D.H.Q. Hospital, Abbottabad as one certificate is for to months from 7-7-1981 and second one from 7-9-1981. Even if the entire period of petitioner's stay at Abbottabad is condoned, the petitioner still could not explain his absence from the new station of his posting at Ruk where he should have reported on or about 1-7-1981 but he failed to do so. The medical certificates sent by him relate to the period from 7-7-1981 onwards. Thus the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner could not report for duty due to unforeseen circumstances does not convince us. We find no merit in this petition. Leave refused. Petition dismissed.