MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD and 3 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The petitioner, a former civil servant in the Telegraphs and Telephone Department, went on deputation to Saudi Arabia. Following the expiry of his deputation period, he failed to report back for duty and was subsequently proceeded against departmentally, resulting in an order declaring that he had ceased to be in service upon the expiry of his deputation pursuant to Fundamental Rule 18. The Federal Service Tribunal partly accepted his appeal by modifying the date he ceased to be a civil servant and setting aside the recovery of monetary benefits. The core legal question concerned the validity of determining the cessation of service from the date deputation expired and the interpretation of extension policies. The Supreme Court held that the department correctly recognized the legal consequences flowing from the petitioner's continued unauthorized absence, and no departmental overreach occurred. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
- Whether an order declaring the cessation of service due to unauthorized absence after deputation can take effect from a retrospective date?
- Whether a permissive policy letter regarding deputation extension can operate independently without a specific extension order?
- Does unauthorized absence beyond the expiry of a deputation period attract the application of Fundamental Rule 18?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Fundamental Rule 18
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal tinder Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 29-3-1992 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was accepted but only partly in so far as the date when he ceased to be a civil servant was modified from 12-6-1977 to 12-6-1982.
2. The petitioner was serving in the Telegraphs and Telephone Department when he was allowed deputation for a year from 8-6-1976 and for service in Saudi Arabia. He did not report back after the expiry of the deputation period whereupon a notice was published in the Daily Nawa-eWage, Multan dated 5-3-1985 informing him that if he failed to report, proceedings under the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 shall start. He reported for duty on 12-3-1985 but was subsequently proceeded against departmentally and by an order passed on 21-5-1987 it was held that he had ceased to be in service from 12-6-1977 when his deputation period expired in view of Fundamental Rule 18. The monetary benefits that he drew during this period were directed to be recovered from him. He appealed to the Service Tribunal which accepted the appeal only to the extent that it was held that the date the petitioner ceased to remain in service shall be read as 12- 6-1982 instead of 12-6-1977. The order with regard to the recovery was also set aside. The petitioner does not feel satisfied with the order and he seeks leave to appeal against it.
3. The petitioner controverted on the factual plane that the deputation was only for a year. He contended that it was extended once for a period of two years and the second time for five years.
The departmental representative was asked to resolve this controversy and he has denied any extension having been made. According to him, five years extension has been pleaded on the basis of the policy letter which was permissive in nature and without an independent order it could not itself operate so as to extend the deputation from the specified period to a period of five years.
It in fact prohibited deputation beyond a period of five years. It is of no avail to the petitioner.
4. As regards the law on the subject, it has been laid down and exhaustively considered in Mst.
Maryam Yunus v. Director of Education, Cantonment, GHQ (PLD 1990 SC 666). The power of the Department to pass orders from the retrospective date has not been exceeded because here only the legal consequence had been recognized from the date that it flowed due to continued absence of the petitioner from duty. The order accomplishes nothing more than giving effect to it.
5. No ground is made out. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.