MUHAMMAD AZAM vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Service Tribunal, which had converted the petitioner's dismissal from service into compulsory retirement. The petitioner, employed as a Sanitation Worker, was dismissed by the respondent for habitual absence from duty, specifically for 51 days during 1985. Before the Service Tribunal, the petitioner admitted to the unauthorized absence but attributed it to his mother's illness, a claim he failed to substantiate. The Service Tribunal concluded that the petitioner had wilfully absented himself and was guilty of misconduct, noting that the petitioner had waived a formal departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings and held that the Service Tribunal's conclusion regarding the petitioner's habitual absence and the rejection of his excuse was sound and not open to exception. The Court determined that no question of law was involved in the petition. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the Service Tribunal's decision regarding the finding of misconduct was justified based on the evidence presented.
- Does the unauthorized absence of an employee for 51 days constitute sufficient grounds for a finding of misconduct?
- Can an employee who admits to unauthorized absence during an inquiry later challenge the finding of misconduct on the basis of unproven personal circumstances?
- Is a Service Tribunal's finding of fact regarding habitual absence open to interference by the Supreme Court when no point of law is involved?
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner was employed as a Sanitation Worker at the Islamabad Airport in 1970. He was dismissed from service by the respondent on the ground of habitual absence from duty. His departmental appeal was rejected on 27-10-1986. The petitioner challenged the order of his dismissal before the Service Tribunal. The Service Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and converted the penalty of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement.
2. The petitioner was absent from duty for a period of 51 days during the year 1985. A Show-Cause Notice was given to him to which he replied that his mother was sick, therefore, he had to go to look after her. He also sent an application for grant of leave to the authorities. It has been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no such application was brought on record by the petitioner.
3. The Service Tribunal observed as hereunder:-- "On merits, we find that the appellant, during the inquiry, accepted the allegations and also waived the requirement of formal departmental inquiry. At the time of personal hearing also he accepted that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty. Though he now says that the absence was due to his mother's illness but that version has not been proved by him. The absence being of broken periods and not continuous, the plea of the illness of the mother on the face of it appears to be an afterthought. We in these circumstances are convinced that the appellant wilfully absented himself for 51 days during the year 1985 and as such was rightly found guilty of misconduct."
4. The finding of the Service Tribunal is not open to any exception. He was habitual defaulter and the plea of ailment of his mother was rightly rejected by the Service Tribunal.
5. No point of law is involved in this petition. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed.