AHSAN A. SHAQUE vs THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (CENTRAL) DIRECTORATE OF NATIONAL SAVINGS And 2 Other
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 service appeal while altering his removal from service into compulsory retirement. The core legal question pertained to the justification of the petitioner's absence from duty following a transfer order and the effect of a stay order on such absence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was relieved of his charge on account of the transfer order and that a subsequent stay order could not have retrospective effect to cover the prior period of absence. The Court concluded that the unauthorized absence from duty constituted serious defiance and disobedience of transfer orders, rendering the petitioner unfit to be retained as a civil servant. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the penalty of compulsory retirement was justified under the circumstances.
- Whether a stay order can have retrospective effect to regularize a period of absence from duty?
- Does unauthorized absence and disobedience of a transfer order justify the removal or compulsory retirement of a civil servant?
- Is leave to appeal maintainable against a service tribunal order upholding disciplinary action for disobedience?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---Leave to appeal has been sought in this service matter against the dismissal by the Federal Service Tribunal of petitioner's appeal except that his removal from service was altered into compulsory retirement.
2. Although technical questions have also been raised regarding the inquiry, learned counsel has not denied that according to record the petitioner was relieved of the charge on account of order of transfer on 16-6-1986. He did not assume the charge at the new place, instead he challenged the orders of his transfer. Learned counsel, however, has argued that a stay order having been issued by a competent forum on 26-5-1986, the period of absence should not have been counted against the petitioner.. We do not agree with him. Even if a valid stay order was passed on 26-5-1986 m the circumstances of the case it could not have any retrospective effect. Accordingly, the period from 16-4-1986 to 26-5-1986 would be treated as of not only "absence from duty" but also a "serious defiance and disobedience of the orders of transfer". The petitioner was no more fit to be retained as a civil servant. For this reason alone we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
3. The same is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.