Ch. MUHAMMAD AZIM vs THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION And Other

ORDER

1. NAIMUDDIN, J.---This appeal by leave is from the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 8-8-1982 whereby the appellant's Service Appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal finding the same being without merits.

2. The question that requires consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant was not given any opportunity of participation in the Departmental Inquiry before terminating his service as stated in the leave granting order.

3. Relevant facts briefly stated, are that the appellant was an Assistant Vernacular Clerk in the Irrigation Department at Khushab Division. He was dismissed from service on 10-6-1980 by the Superintending Engineer, Thal Canal Circle, Mianwali City, the respondent No.2. He filed a Departmental Appeal with the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Sargodha, respondent No.1 which was rejected and the appellant was informed accordingly by the letter dated 1-7-1981. Against the orders dated 10-6-1980 and 1st July, 1981, he filed an appeal before. The Service Tribunal, Lahore, being case No.473/1634 of 1981, which was also dismissed by the order impugned in this appeal.

4. Further, facts are that the appellant appeared before the Medical Superintendent, Mianwali with docket issued by the Executive Engineer, Kala Bagh Division for medical examination, who recommended him two weeks' rest on 1-8-1979. Accordingly, he proceeded to avail the leave sanctioned from 3-8-1979 to 16-8-1979. However, the appellant left the Station without permission and sanction of further leave. Thereafter, he started submitted piecemeal applications with medical certificates of the Medical Officer, Badomali, District Sialkot. The medical certificates later on did not mention that the appellant was too weak to move from the bed. The appellant thus absented himself from duty and remained on self-granted leave upto 10-1-1980.

5. The Executive Engineer by letter No.6088/PF dated 3-10-1979 directed the appellant to appear before the Medical Superintendent, Sialkot for second opinion but he did not appear. Since the appellant was not responding to the letters issued to him, the District Magistrate, Sialkot and the Superintendent of Police, Sialkot were requested vide letter dated 4-12-1979 to initiate proceedings against the appellant under the Essential Services Act so that he could resume duty.

6. Superintendent of Police, Sialkot reported and attached the statement from Muhammad Sadiq, Proprietor, Sufi Cloth House, Badomali, District Sialkot that the appellant had come to his house but later on left with his family for Multan. This resulted in issuance of a Show-Cause Notice to the appellant for wilful absence from duty. The appellant submitted the explanation and also resumed the duty. However, the reply was not found satisfactory. It is mentioned by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment that the appellant was also directed to appear for personal hearing before the Superintending Engineer, Thal Circle, Mianwali, but he declined to appear for personal hearing on vague grounds. Therefore, the appellant was found guilty of wilful absence and his services were terminated. In this regard the Service Tribunal noted the submissions of the District Attorney in the following words: "He was asked to appear before the Medical Superintendent, Sialkot for second opinion but he did not comply with the same. Thus it is proved beyond any doubt that he wilfully absented himself from duty and the punishment so awarded is in accordance with the rules and is lawful."

7. The Tribunal has dealt with this argument as follows: "As regards his refusal for non-receipt of Executive Engineer, Kala Bagh's letter regarding appearing before the Medical Superintendent, Sialkot, an affidavit was filed by Mr. Muhammad Bashir Ahmad, Head Clerk, which reads as under: "I hereby solemnly state that although XEN, Kaia Bagh Division No. 6088/6-E, dated 3-10-1979 addressed to Mr. Muhammad Azim, AVC for his medical check up, was posted to him at his given address in ordinary dak, yet the said letter was received by him and it was with the AVC which I sax- when the AVC happened to be in my office on 27-4-1980."

8. Thus, it is proved that he was in receipt of the said letter. He wilfully refused to acknowledge this letter and also did not appear before the Medical Superintendent, Sialkot intentionally for the reasons best known to him. He was also given a chance to appear before the Superintendent Engineer, Thal Circle, Mianwali, for personal hearing before deciding his wilful absence case; but he refused to do so by stating---------"

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.N. Abbasi, learned Assistant Advocate-General.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant made the same submission in support of the appeal as has been noticed in the judgment of the Tribunal and mentioned above. We find no force in the submission because appellant was given full opportunity of hearing but he failed to avail of the same. The finding of the Tribunal is a finding of fact and does not call for any interference by this Court.'

11. No substantial question of law, much less question of law of public importance has been raised in this appeal before us. Therefore, we find no merits in this appeal and accordingly dismiss it but in the circumstances of this case leave the parties to bear their own costs.