AMANULLAH KHAN vs WAPDA through Chairnian and 3 others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal against an order of dismissal from service. The petitioner, a deputationist from the Punjab Government to WAPDA, had proceeded abroad on leave, failed to return upon its expiry, and accepted unauthorized employment in Saudi Arabia despite a prior written undertaking not to seek other employment. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order on the grounds that it was given retrospective effect and that the inquiry process was flawed. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner had unilaterally abandoned his employment by accepting a job abroad in violation of his undertaking. The Court held that the dismissal order, by referencing the date of abandonment, merely stated a factual reality rather than exercising retrospective power. The Court affirmed that the petitioner's conduct in failing to return and accepting unauthorized employment justified the dismissal. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, as the petitioner could not resile from his written undertaking or claim the benefit of policies inapplicable to his deputation status.
- Can an employee on deputation unilaterally accept foreign employment in violation of a written undertaking?
- Does an order of dismissal referencing the date of abandonment of service constitute an impermissible retrospective order?
- Is an employee who fails to return from leave and takes unauthorized employment entitled to challenge the dismissal order on the basis of retrospective effect?
ORDER
' SJ-IAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 9-1-1992 whereby the appeal filed by him was dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of limitation.
2. The petitioner challenged the dismissal from service order passed on 28-12-1987 but taking effect from 13-8-1978.
3. The petitioner was posted as Director of Design WAPDA (Power) at Lahore. He himself being a Deputionist from Punjab Government obtained three months' leave from 18-5-1978 for visiting his family abroad. He gave an undertaking that he would not seek employment anywhere else. He did not return after the expiry of the leave and instead obtained an employment in Saudi Arabia where he remains still employed. He sought in view of the various policy letters extension of his leave which was refused. He was charge-sheeted and dismissed from service.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned before the Tribunal was from a retrospective date going as far back in retrospect as August, 1978 and was beyond the competence of Authority. Similarly, the inquiry was not held in accordance with law and the petitioner should have been extended the benefit of employment abroad as would appear to be the policy of Government in 1978 or near about.
5. From the facts narrated, it appears that the petitioner was on deputation when he proceeded abroad. These instructions do not apply to a person who is already on deputation. He could not of his own proceed to a second deputation. Besides he had given a written undertaking not to take up an employment anywhere else. Hence he could not resile from it unilaterally. Had he not given it he would not have been granted leave ex-Pakistan. What is more by taking up employment abroad, he definitely abandoned his employment in WAPDA and in the dismissal order by mentioning that date as of dismissal and relating it to the date of his abandonment of his employment nothing more than a fact was stated. It was not a question of passing a restrospective order or the question of power of the Authority but of the conduct of the petitioner in not returning after expiry of the leave and by taking up an unauthorised employment abroad.
6. Leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus SHAN ELAHI 1998 PLC(CS) 1144