CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, WAPDA, MULTAN And Another vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of a Service Tribunal, which had set aside the compulsory retirement of the respondent, Muhammad Shafi. The respondent, an employee of WAPDA, was initially removed from service for unauthorized absence from duty following a transfer. Upon departmental appeal, this was converted to compulsory retirement. The respondent challenged this before the Service Tribunal, asserting his absence was due to illness, supported by medical certification. The Tribunal found that the competent authority had subsequently sanctioned earned leave on medical grounds for the entire period of absence and had even paid the respondent's salary arrears for that duration. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the basis for the disciplinary action—alleged willful absence—was factually incorrect. The Supreme Court, upon review, affirmed the Tribunal's findings, noting that the grant of leave and payment of arrears effectively negated the charge of misconduct. The Court concluded that no question of law was involved and dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the reinstatement of the respondent.
- Can disciplinary action for willful absence be sustained when the competent authority has subsequently sanctioned leave on medical grounds for the same period?
- Does the payment of salary arrears for a period of absence imply that the absence was authorized?
- Is a finding of fact by a Service Tribunal regarding the nature of an employee's absence subject to interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of a question of law?
- Rule 5, WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1978
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.-The respondent Muhammad Shaft was serving at Khanewal when he was transferred to Muzaffargarh Division but he did not join there. He was proceeded against for absence of duty and then removed from service. The respondent filed an appeal before the departmental authority and his removal from service was converted into compulsory retirement from the date of his removal. The respondent challenged this order before the Service Tribunal on the ground that his absence from the duty was on account of his serious illness. In support of such contention he submitted a medical certificate issued by a competent medical practitioner. The learned Tribunal after considering the facts of the case allowed the appeal. The operative part of the order reads as hereunder:-- "As we see from orders dated 16-2-1985 (Annexure H) and 27-6-1985 (Annexure O) and explanation letter R/5 dated 4-9-1984, the only basis for the appellant's compulsory retirement from service was his absence from duty without leave for the period from 8-7-1984 to 19-1-1985 about which the competent Authority's finding was that it was wilful and without any justification. This seems to have clearly been contradicted by Office Order No.75/T dated 25-11-1985 passed by the Superintending Engineer (East) Wapda, 2nd Circle Multan, whereby the appellant was granted earned leave with effect from 8-7-1984 to 19-1-1985 (6 months 12 days) on medical grounds. As it appears from the order, this leave was sanctioned. Without any substitute on last pay drawn and the arrears of pay amounting to Rs.9,634/53 for this period were also paid to him as we have seen from payment voucher dated 30-1-1986. In view of this order, therefore, we have been left with no alternative but to hold that the appellant's absence from the office was on account of illness and by no means deliberate, as could have justified either his removal or compulsory retirement from service. The very basis of disciplinary action against him has been taken away and it is no longer factually correct that the appellant's absence from duty was wilful and that amounted to misconduct under Rule 5 of the Rules, as could have been relied upon as ground for any punitive action."
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent. He submitted that the petitioner was transferred to Muzaffargharh Division but he failed to report for duty. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects of the case. The respondent was granted earned leave on medical grounds by the competent authority and his arrears of pay were also paid to him. On such a view of the matter it cannot be said that the respondent was absent from duty without any sanction of leave. The facts have been clearly narrated in the impugned judgment.
3. No question of law is involved in this petition. The petition has no force.
Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.