MUHAMMAD HANIF vs S.P. LAHORE and others
The petitioner, a Police Constable with nine years of service, challenged his dismissal from service resulting from continuous unauthorized absence on multiple occasions between June and July 1990. His departmental appeal and subsequent appeal before the Service Tribunal were both rejected. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal erred in rejecting the medical certificates and the defense of illness raised by the petitioner for his unauthorized absence from a disciplined force. The Supreme Court held that as a member of a disciplined force, the petitioner was required to appear before an Authorized Medical Officer and maintain constant communication with his department, failing which his defense of illness was rightly rejected. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that procedural formalities were duly observed and the reasons given by the tribunals justified the refusal of relief.
- Whether a member of a disciplined force can justify unauthorized absence from duty through medical certificates without consulting an Authorized Medical Officer?
- Does failure to maintain constant link with the department during absence defeat the defense of illness in service matters?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent findings of departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal regarding dismissal for absence from duty?
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 reelected 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 Authorized 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 defense that the appellant's absence was due to illness cannot he 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.