MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs F.IA. And Others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Ramzan, a BPS-1 employee in the FIA Academy, Islamabad, challenging the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed his appeal against his removal from service. The core legal question concerned the validity of the departmental removal order passed against the petitioner on the grounds of unauthorized absence from duty and failure to substantiate his plea of illness during the domestic inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to lead evidence before the inquiry officer to prove his illness or to explain his prolonged absence, and rightly did not get himself treated by an authorized medical officer of the academy. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings upholding the removal from service.
- Whether an employee's failure to produce evidence in defense during a departmental inquiry justifies removal from service for unauthorized absence?
- Can a temporary employee challenge removal from service based on unverified medical certificates when failing to consult an authorized medical officer?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of a departmental authority and the Service Tribunal regarding employee misconduct?
ORDER
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J. --Muhammad Ramzan, an employee (BPS-1) in the FIA Academy, Islamabad, seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 29-5-1993, of the Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"), Islamabad, whereby his appeal directed against order dated 13-2-1992, passed by the departmental authority removing him from service was dismissed.
2. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had absented himself from duty on 7-8-1991, without permision and failed to attend the office until he was served with a charge-sheet on 19-11- 1991. The inquiry officer found him guilty of the charge as he failed to lead evidence in defence and particularly did not produce the doctor who had issued him medical certificates in proof of his illness. On the basis of the finding of the inquiry officer the competent authority removed him from service. His appeal before the Tribunal failed. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. It was contended by the petitioner that he could not attend the office on account of having fallen ill and referred to the copies of the medical certificates placed on the record in support of his submission.
4: We have heard the petitioner and have gone through the documents on the file. The petitioner did not lead evidence before the inquiry officer in proof of his illness nor could give reply to the question as to why he did not get himself treated by a medical officer' employed by the FIA Academy. The petitioner was a temporary employee and has failed to explain his absence from duty for a considerable period. The impugned order pissed by the departmental authority removing him from service was rightly affirmed in appeal by the Tribunal.
5. In the result, we find no substance in this petition and dismiss it. Leave to appeal is accordingly refused.