MUHAMMAD HANIF vs S. P., LAHORE and others
The petitioner, a police constable, challenged his dismissal from service following his unauthorized absence from duty on three separate occasions in 1990. The petitioner contended that he had nine years of service and that the medical certificates he submitted to justify his absence should have been accepted. The Service Tribunal rejected his appeal, noting that as a member of a disciplined force, the petitioner failed to report to the authorized medical officer appointed by his superiors and neglected to maintain communication with his department, thereby creating a communication gap. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the findings of the Service Tribunal and affirmed the decision. The Court held that the reasons provided by the Tribunal were sufficient to justify the refusal of relief, emphasizing that a member of a disciplined force is under a strict obligation to follow prescribed procedures for reporting illness and maintaining contact with the department. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition, concluding that the dismissal was procedurally sound and justified, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.
- Is a member of a disciplined force required to report to an authorized medical officer to justify absence due to illness?
- Does a failure to maintain communication with the department during an absence justify the rejection of a medical defense in disciplinary proceedings?
- Can a service tribunal's findings regarding procedural compliance in a dismissal case be upheld if the employee failed to follow prescribed reporting protocols?
ORDER
' Petitioner was employed as constable and on remaining absent from duty on the following dates, he was dismissed from service:
(i) 3-6-1990 to 21-6-1990,
(ii) 26-6-1990 to 8-7-1990, and
(iii) 14-7-1990 till the date of dismissal from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against his dismissal by the competent authority was rejected by the Service Tribunal through the impugned judgment.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had nine years' service to his credit and that the medical certificates furnished by him could not be rejected summarily. The reasons given in the impugned order for not accepting the plea of the petitioner are reflected in para. No,5 which are reproduced:--- "It can be made out without going into details that the appellant is making out a story. As a member of the disciplined force it was necessary for him to make sure that he appears before the Authorised Medical Officer duly appointed by his superiors and should have kept a constant link with his department to avoid the possibility of any communication gap. That not having been done the defence that the appellant's absence was due to illness cannot be accepted. The impugned orders were passed after observing necessary procedural formalities, are in accordance with the laid down procedure."
' We feel that the said reasons did justify the refusal of the relief sought and consequently this petition is dismissed and leave is refused.