COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, HYDERABAD and anothers vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Collector of Customs against an order of the Service Tribunal. The respondent, an Inspector in the Customs Department, suffered medical issues and was initially granted medical leave supported by a medical certificate. However, his request for an extension of leave was subsequently refused, leading to disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of a major penalty of removal from service for unauthorized absence. The Service Tribunal set aside the penalty, holding that the inquiry was unjustified and that after initially sanctioning medical leave, the department could not refuse an extension without first referring the employee for a second medical opinion before a Medical Board or an officer of the Health Department. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no ground for exception. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused and the petition was dismissed.
- Can a department decline a civil servant's request for extension of medical leave without referring the case for a second medical opinion or to a Medical Board?
- Whether disciplinary proceedings and removal from service for unauthorized absence are justified when the employee's request for medical leave extension is refused without medical verification?
- Is the refusal of an extension of medical leave sustainable where the initial medical leave was sanctioned on the basis of a medical certificate?
ORDER
' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The respondent was serving as Inspector in the Customs Department since 8- 12-1985. In 1982 he was posted at Mirpurkhas when he suffered angina pain and got medical treatment from the Medical Officer at Mirpurkhas as an outdoor patient. In the meanwhile he informed the Department about his said illness through a telegram dated 12-5-1992 which was also Accompanied by a medical certificate. Although, leave was sanctioned for an initial period of two months but further extension of leave was refused and instead disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent and as a consequence thereof a major penalty of removal from service was imposed. The period of un-authorised absence was also treated as leave without pay.
2. The respondent approached the Service Tribunal in appeal and the learned Tribunal has set aside the said order holding that the circumstances did not call for holding of an inquiry against the respondent. Once request for medical leave was granted the respondent's subsequent request for extension of such leave could not be declined without referring his case for a second medical opinion either to an officer of the Health Department or a Medical Board.
3. We have heard Mr. Akmal Wasim, learned counsel for the petitioner-department and have also perused the judgment of the learned Tribunal. In view of the circumstances of the case, the judgment of the Tribunal does not appear to be open to exception.
' In the result, leave is refused and the petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- ZAHID ABBAS, EXLANGRI PB. HIGHWAY PATROL vs AIG_ADMINISTRATION, PUNJAB, CPO OFFICE, LAHORE and another 2019 KLR L&S Cases 93, 2019 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 1