We get a lot of queries from Civil Servants on Absence from Duty and it’s legal implications for their careers. In the realm of civil service, the duty to uphold discipline and adhere to established protocols is paramount. Civil servants are entrusted with responsibilities that require consistent attendance and active participation in their assigned roles. However, instances of unauthorised or prolonged absence from duty can disrupt the efficiency of public service and undermine the trust placed in these officials. Over the years, courts in Pakistan have addressed numerous cases involving civil servants who have failed to meet their obligations, particularly regarding unauthorised absences. Through these rulings,
the judiciary has delineated clear principles that guide the consequences of such absences, including the potential for dismissal. This blog explores the key takeaways from landmark cases and examines how the law has evolved to balance the need for strict disciplinary measures with the principles of fairness and due process.
Key Takeaways from the Case law on Civil Servants’ Absence from Duty
The cases discussed below illustrate several key principles that the courts in Pakistan have consistently upheld regarding civil servants’ absence from duty. These principles are crucial for understanding how the law has been applied and how it has evolved over time.
1. Wilful Absence as Serious Misconduct
- Key Principle: Wilful absence from duty is treated as a serious form of misconduct that can justify severe disciplinary actions, including dismissal. This principle is evident in cases like Muhammad Aslam v. Province of Punjab (1984), where the court upheld the dismissal of a police constable who repeatedly absented himself without sanctioned leave and provided unreliable medical certificates.
- Evolution: Over time, the courts have consistently reinforced this stance, particularly when the absence is prolonged, or the civil servant shows a clear disregard for their responsibilities. The judicial system has increasingly focused on the impact of such absences on public service delivery and the importance of maintaining discipline within the civil service.
2. Importance of Procedural Fairness
- Key Principle: The courts have underscored the necessity of following due process in disciplinary actions. Even in cases of clear misconduct, the dismissal may be overturned if the proper procedures, such as issuing show-cause notices and conducting fair inquiries, are not followed. This was evident in Ranjho Khan v. Secretary to Government of Sindh (1986), where the dismissal was set aside due to procedural defects.
- Evolution: The emphasis on procedural fairness has grown stronger over time, reflecting a judicial concern for upholding the principles of natural justice. The law has evolved to ensure that disciplinary measures are not only justified by the facts but also implemented in a manner that respects the legal rights of civil servants.
3. Credibility of Medical Evidence
- Key Principle: Medical certificates provided to justify absences must be credible and reliable. Courts have dismissed cases where medical evidence was deemed questionable or provided as an afterthought, as seen in Mir Nazir Ahmad v. Province of Punjab (1983), where unreliable medical certificates led to the dismissal being upheld.
- Evolution: The scrutiny of medical evidence has intensified over time, with courts increasingly unwilling to accept medical certificates that appear to be a means of avoiding duty rather than genuine documentation of illness. This evolution reflects a broader judicial effort to prevent abuse of the medical leave system.
4. Impact of Personal Circumstances
- Key Principle: While personal circumstances can sometimes mitigate the severity of disciplinary actions, they do not absolve civil servants of their duty to follow proper procedures. In Abdul Razzaq v. Superintendent of Police, Bahawalpur (1983), the court recognized extenuating circumstances (Act of God) and did not uphold the dismissal.
- Evolution: The courts have maintained a balanced approach, where genuine and uncontrollable personal circumstances are considered, but they must be properly documented and communicated to the relevant authorities. This approach has evolved to ensure that while compassion is shown where appropriate, it does not undermine the overall discipline required in the civil service.
5. Sanction of Leave is Essential
- Key Principle: Civil servants cannot assume leave is sanctioned without explicit approval from the competent authority. Absence without sanctioned leave is treated as unauthorised and can lead to disciplinary actions, including dismissal, as seen in Muhammad Yar v. Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar (1985).
- Evolution: Over time, this principle has been consistently applied, with courts affirming that leave cannot be taken as a matter of right. The evolution here has seen courts increasingly emphasize the need for civil servants to follow due process in seeking and obtaining leave, reflecting a broader trend towards ensuring accountability and adherence to administrative procedures.
6. Insubordination and Refusal to Comply with Directives
- Key Principle: Insubordination, such as refusing to comply with directives to return to duty or undergo medical evaluations, is treated as an aggravating factor that justifies dismissal. This was highlighted in Abdus Sattar Ijaz v. Secretary, Communication and Works Dept (1983), where continued insubordination and absence led to the dismissal being upheld.
- Evolution: The courts have increasingly taken a strict view of insubordination, particularly when it is coupled with unauthorised absence. The law has evolved to reinforce the authority of departmental heads and the necessity for civil servants to comply with orders, reflecting a broader judicial support for maintaining hierarchical discipline within the civil service.
Evolution of the Law Over Time
- Increasing Emphasis on Fairness: The evolution of the law has seen an increasing emphasis on ensuring that disciplinary actions are conducted fairly. This includes strict adherence to procedural requirements, such as issuing show-cause notices, holding inquiries, and providing opportunities for personal hearings. The focus on fairness ensures that civil servants are not unjustly penalized and that any disciplinary action taken is both procedurally and substantively justifiable.
- Stricter Scrutiny of Excuses for Absence: There has been a trend towards stricter scrutiny of the reasons given for absences, particularly when supported by medical evidence. Courts have shown less tolerance for dubious medical certificates and have been more inclined to uphold dismissals when the evidence suggests that the civil servant is attempting to avoid duty without a valid reason.
- Balance Between Discipline and Compassion: While the courts have maintained a strong stance on upholding discipline within the civil service, there has also been an evolving recognition of personal circumstances that may warrant a less severe penalty. However, this recognition is balanced by the expectation that civil servants must still adhere to procedural requirements and communicate their circumstances to the relevant authorities.
The legal framework governing civil servants’ absence from duty in Pakistan has evolved to balance the need for strict discipline with the principles of fairness and natural justice. The key takeaways from the cases discussed highlight that while dismissal is a likely outcome in cases of wilful, prolonged, or unsubstantiated absence, the courts will also carefully consider whether proper procedures were followed and whether the civil servant had valid reasons for their absence. The evolution of the law reflects a growing judicial commitment to ensuring that disciplinary actions are both fair and effective in maintaining the integrity of the civil service.
Court’s View on Civil Servants’ Absence from Duty: Instances Leading to Dismissal
In the jurisprudence concerning civil servants in Pakistan, the issue of absence from duty has been a focal point in various cases, reflecting the judiciary’s nuanced approach to such matters. The courts have emphasised that while absence from duty is a serious charge warranting severe consequences, the procedural fairness in dealing with such charges is paramount. Below are analyses of key cases illustrating the courts’ stance and the conditions under which dismissal from service is likely to be upheld.
Haphazard Prosecution and Reinstatement: Muhammad Saeed v. Superintendent of Police (2006 PLC(CS) 720)
In the case of Muhammad Saeed v. Superintendent of Police, Headquarters (Law and Orders) Lahore, the employee was dismissed due to an extended absence from duty. However, the court found that the prosecution was conducted in a slipshod manner, neglecting the fact that the employee had been paid for the period he was absent. This oversight indicated departmental slackness, and the court consequently reinstated the employee, directing the authorities to hold de novo proceedings. The case underscores that even in instances of prolonged absence, dismissal might not be upheld if the prosecution is flawed or if the department fails to follow proper procedures.
Dismissal for Continuous Absence: Mehran University of Engineering and Technology Cases (2006 SCMR 86 & 2006 PLC(CS) 25)
In Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro v. Dr. Muhammad Moazam Baloch, the employee was dismissed for continuous absence after returning from leave granted for higher education abroad. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, reinforcing the principle that an employee cannot neglect their duty indefinitely, particularly when personal reasons are cited without formal acceptance of resignation or alternative arrangements. The court noted that the university’s failure to place the dismissal order on record did not invalidate the dismissal. This case illustrates that continuous and unjustified absence, especially when compounded by procedural lapses on the employee’s part, can result in the dismissal being upheld.
Absence Due to Illness: Government of Sindh v. Nazir Ahmed Soomro (2005 SCMR 311)
In this case, the employee’s absence due to illness was questioned as the employee failed to provide convincing evidence of his illness. The court held that simply submitting a leave application does not entitle an employee to assume leave has been granted. The court granted leave to appeal, indicating that absence from duty without substantiating evidence, particularly in cases where the employee does not follow up on their leave application, can justify dismissal.
Absence Due to Fugitive Status: Government of N.-W. F.P. v. Aurangzeb (2003 SCMR 338 & 2003 PLC(CS) 167)
In Government of N.-W. F.P. v. Aurangzeb, the employee was removed from service due to prolonged absence caused by his fugitive status in a murder case. The court unequivocally held that such absence, particularly when the civil servant remains a fugitive and fails to apply for leave despite notices, is sufficient ground for dismissal. This case sets a clear precedent that abscondence, especially when linked to criminal activity, provides a justifiable basis for dismissal from service.
Short Absence and Misappropriation Allegations: Muhammad Mehmood v. General Manager, Utility Stores Corporation (2003 PLC(CS) 1547)
In this instance, the employee was dismissed for a short period of absence and alleged misappropriation of trading stock. The court, however, found the penalty of dismissal harsh, given the circumstances, and converted the dismissal into a reduction in scale. The court’s decision reflects a consideration of proportionality in disciplinary actions, especially when the absence is brief and explanations, such as a medical certificate, are provided.
Discrimination in Reinstatement: Muhammad Saleem v. Inspector General of Police (2002 PLC(CS) 330)
In Muhammad Saleem v. Inspector General of Police, the court addressed the issue of discrimination in the reinstatement of an employee who had been dismissed along with a co-civil servant for involvement in a criminal case. Both were acquitted, but only one was granted full service and monetary benefits upon reinstatement. The court condemned the discriminatory treatment, reinforcing the principle of equal treatment in similar circumstances.
Absence Leading to Denial of Benefits: Muhammad Taufique v. United Bank Limited (2002 PLC(CS) 1472)
In the case of Muhammad Taufique v. United Bank Limited, the appellant was a bank employee retrenched under the Golden Handshake Scheme. He was denied benefits under the scheme due to allegations of misconduct, which included obtaining unauthorized overdraft and habitual absenteeism, exceeding 90 days of absence without leave. The allegations were proven through an independent inquiry, and the employee admitted to the absence. The court upheld the decision to deny him benefits, reinforcing the principle that employees found guilty of severe misconduct, such as prolonged absence without leave, are not entitled to retrenchment benefits.
Dismissal for Unauthorised Absence: Mumtaz Ali Khan v. Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Production (2001 PLC(CS) 692)
In this case, Mumtaz Ali Khan, a civil servant, was dismissed after an inquiry found him guilty of unauthorised absence from duty. As a Design Engineer, he was tasked with overseeing a priority assembly project, which he failed to attend without permission, and subsequently left the country. The court upheld the dismissal, terming the absence a “height of misconduct” and a clear violation of his service agreement. This decision underlines that unauthorised absence, particularly when it involves critical duties, justifies dismissal from service.
Wilful Absence Resulting in Dismissal: Javed Khan v. The Director Works and Chief Engineer (Army) GHQ (2001 PLC(CS) 524)
The case of Javed Khan involved a civil servant who absented himself from duty for more than a year without applying for leave. The court upheld his dismissal, noting that the civil servant’s conduct was contumacious and unauthorised. The ruling emphasized that wilful absence, especially for extended periods, and failure to seek proper leave is sufficient ground for dismissal.
Procedural Deficiencies Leading to Reinstatement: Liaqat Ali, Ex-Constable, Police Station Nizampur, Nowshera v. I.-G. Police, N.-W. F. P. (2000 PLC(CS) 817)
In this case, Liaqat Ali, a constable, was removed from service due to absence without leave. However, the court found procedural irregularities in the inquiry process. The removal order included charges not present in the initial charge sheet, and contradictory statements regarding medical certificates. Consequently, the court set aside the removal order, ordering reinstatement. This case illustrates that even in cases of clear absence, dismissal may not be upheld if procedural fairness is compromised.
Dismissal Overturned Due to Procedural Violations: Abdus Sattar Khan v. University of Peshawar (2000 PLC(CS) 965)
The court in Abdus Sattar Khan v. University of Peshawar overturned a dismissal due to the violation of natural justice. The civil servant was dismissed for wilful absence, but the inquiry was conducted in his absence, and he was not provided an opportunity to be heard. The court held that the absence of a proper show-cause notice and the failure to follow statutory rules rendered the dismissal unsustainable.
Severe Misconduct Leading to Dismissal: Muhammad Anwar v. President of Pakistan (1996 PLC(CS) 716)
In this case, Muhammad Anwar, a doctor, was removed from service for wilful absence and misconduct. Despite being granted extraordinary leave without pay, he repeatedly extended his leave using political influence and ultimately failed to return to duty. The court upheld the dismissal, stating that the civil servant’s failure to resume duties despite multiple directives constituted severe misconduct.
Dismissal for Long Absence: Water and Power Development Authority v. Shan Elahi (1998 PLC(CS) 1144 & 1998 SCMR 1890)
The case of Water and Power Development Authority v. Shan Elahi involved a civil servant who remained absent for over four years without permission. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, emphasizing that the civil servant failed to provide any plausible explanation that would have justified a regular inquiry. This case demonstrates that extreme absence without valid reasons is likely to lead to dismissal.
Arbitrary Exercise of Powers: Muhammad Ali v. Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1998 PLC(CS) 1104 & 1998 SCMR 2246)
In Muhammad Ali v. Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Supreme Court condemned the arbitrary exercise of powers when the Ministry treated a civil servant’s absence as leave without pay, despite his valid reasons for delay in returning from a foreign posting. The court’s decision reinforces the need for fairness and proper justification in decisions related to absence and subsequent penalties.
Unauthorised Absence Post-Leave: Pir Sahib Shah v. Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh (1995 PLC(CS) 860)
In the case of Pir Sahib Shah v. Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, the appellant, a doctor, was removed from service after he failed to return to duty following an extended period of leave granted for higher studies. Despite receiving show-cause notices, the civil servant neither reported back nor applied for further leave. The court upheld the removal, noting that after exhausting the maximum leave allowable under the rules, the civil servant’s prolonged absence justified the termination of his service. This case highlights that unauthorised absence following the expiry of leave, particularly when extended without approval, can validly lead to dismissal.
Prolonged Absence Without Sanctioned Leave: Taa Muhammad v. Auditor-General of Pakistan (1995 PLC(CS) 752)
In Taa Muhammad v. Auditor-General of Pakistan, the appellant applied for an extension of leave, which was denied by the competent authority. Instead of resuming duty, he remained absent for over three years. The court ruled that the civil servant, having failed to rejoin duty and not securing an approved leave extension, was rightly removed from service. This decision reinforces the principle that absence without sanctioned leave, especially for extended periods, warrants dismissal.
Absconding for Extended Period: Riaz Ahmad v. Collector, Central Excise and Sales Tax (1995 PLC(CS) 435)
The appellant in Riaz Ahmad v. Collector, Central Excise and Sales Tax absconded and remained absent for nine years. The court upheld his removal, stating that such prolonged absence without justification or sanctioned leave constituted gross misconduct. The court also noted that the department’s delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings did not absolve the civil servant of responsibility. This case demonstrates that extreme and unjustified absence, even in the face of delayed disciplinary action, can result in dismissal.
Reinstatement with Conditions Due to Long Absence: Ali Akbar Shah v. Secretary, Government of Sindh (1994 PLC(CS) 1093)
In this case, Ali Akbar Shah, who was absent for more than six years, was conditionally reinstated rather than dismissed. His absence was treated as leave without pay, and three increments were stopped. The court noted that the civil servant should have been content with this outcome, given that his prolonged and wilful absence would ordinarily justify dismissal. The court’s stance here illustrates that while dismissal is often warranted for long unauthorised absence, reinstatement may occur under strict conditions if the department exercises leniency.
Absence Due to Inefficiency and Misconduct: Khadim Hussain v. District Health Officer, Mirpur, Azad Kashmir (1994 PLC(CS) 230)
In Khadim Hussain v. District Health Officer, Mirpur, the civil servant was dismissed due to inefficiency, habitual absence, and association with individuals of questionable character. The court found that the dismissal was tainted by the personal grievances of the authority, lacking fairness and impartiality. The case underscores that while absence coupled with misconduct can justify dismissal, the disciplinary process must be free from personal bias and adhere to principles of natural justice.
Absence from Duty for Several Years: Manzoor Hussain v. Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (1994 SCMR 519 & 1994 PLC(CS) 627)
Manzoor Hussain was on deputation abroad but failed to report back for duty for nearly nine years. The department declared that he had ceased to be in service. The Service Tribunal modified the cessation date but upheld the decision that he was no longer in service due to his prolonged absence. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, highlighting that prolonged absence without justification, even if the department’s action is taken retrospectively, can lead to dismissal.
Termination Due to Unsatisfactory Explanation: Muhammad Arshad Chishti v. Director-General, Military Lands and Cantonments (1994 PLC(CS) 160)
In Muhammad Arshad Chishti v. Director-General, Military Lands and Cantonments, the civil servant’s services were terminated due to his unsatisfactory explanation for absence from duty. The court upheld the termination, stating that despite being given an opportunity to explain, the civil servant failed to provide a satisfactory reason for his absence. This case illustrates that when a civil servant is unable to justify their absence, dismissal is a likely outcome.
Unauthorised Absence and Dismissal: Khalil-ul-Haq Awan v. Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (1994 PLC(CS) 1677)
In Khalil-ul-Haq Awan v. Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation, the appellant was dismissed from service after failing to report back to duty following a three-day sanctioned leave. The appellant’s subsequent applications for extended leave were denied, and despite repeated directives to resume duty, he remained absent. The court upheld the dismissal, noting that the civil servant’s failure to comply with directives, coupled with the submission of invalid medical certificates, constituted wilful and unauthorised absence. This case highlights that when a civil servant deliberately disregards instructions to return to duty, dismissal is a justified consequence.
Absence Without Leave Leading to Reduction in Rank: Habib Ahmed v. Director-General, Registration (1994 PLC(CS) 1556)
In Habib Ahmed v. Director-General, Registration, the appellant was penalised with a reduction in rank due to unauthorised absence from duty for over ten days. Although the absence was less prolonged compared to other cases, the court upheld the penalty, emphasizing that unauthorised absence, even for shorter durations, constitutes misconduct. The court also pointed out the procedural flaw in the authority’s failure to specify the duration for which the penalty would apply, which rendered the order partially defective. This case illustrates that while dismissal may not always be the outcome, unauthorised absence can lead to significant penalties, such as reduction in rank.
Long Absence Without Justification: Muhammad Farooq v. Chairman, Area Electricity Board, WAPDA (1994 PLC(CS) 1021)
In Muhammad Farooq v. Chairman, Area Electricity Board, WAPDA, the employee was dismissed after remaining absent for 22 months without any justification or attempt to secure leave. The court found the absence to be a case of gross negligence and misconduct, thus upholding the dismissal. However, considering the employee’s young age and the absence of any corruption charges, the court modified the punishment to removal from service rather than outright dismissal. This case underscores that prolonged and unjustified absence from duty, especially without any communication or leave application, is likely to result in dismissal, though mitigating factors may influence the severity of the penalty.
Absence Without Leave Due to Personal Reasons: Javeid Ahmed v. Chief Engineer, Guddu Thermal Power Project (1994 PLC(CS) 852)
In Javeid Ahmed v. Chief Engineer, Guddu Thermal Power Project, the appellant was removed from service after remaining absent for a significant period without leave. He justified his absence by citing his mother’s illness but failed to provide a valid medical certificate. The court upheld the removal, emphasizing that the unauthorised and wilful absence was sufficient grounds for dismissal. This case illustrates that even personal reasons, if unsupported by proper documentation or leave, do not excuse prolonged absence from duty.
Procedural Irregularities Leading to Reinstatement: Abdul Matin v. Chief of the Air Staff, PAF (1994 PLC(CS) 63)
In Abdul Matin v. Chief of the Air Staff, PAF, the appellant was removed from service due to prolonged unauthorised absence. However, the court found that the disciplinary proceedings were flawed, as the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself. The court set aside the removal, highlighting that even in cases of clear absence, the disciplinary process must adhere to principles of natural justice. This case underscores that procedural fairness is crucial in disciplinary actions, and any irregularities can lead to the reversal of a dismissal order.
Absence Leading to Termination: Abdul Waheed v. Secretary, Establishment Division (1993 PLC(CS) 1422)
In Abdul Waheed v. Secretary, Establishment Division, the appellant was not considered for promotion due to unauthorised absence. The court upheld the decision, noting that the appellant’s absence, coupled with his failure to secure proper leave, constituted misconduct. This case demonstrates that unauthorised absence not only impacts the immediate employment status but can also affect future career prospects, such as promotions.
Unauthorised Absence and Dismissal Validity: Ghulam Zuhra v. District Education Officer (1992 PLC(CS) 918)
In Ghulam Zuhra v. District Education Officer, the appellant was removed from service after being absent for a prolonged period without any valid leave. The court upheld the removal, stating that the unauthorised absence had been proven and the disciplinary action was justified. This case further reinforces that prolonged absence without appropriate leave approval is a legitimate ground for dismissal.
Absence from Duty Without Leave: Hoor v. District Education Officer (1992 PLC(CS) 829)
In Hoor v. District Education Officer, the civil servant remained absent for about four years without authorised leave, leading to her removal from service. The court upheld the removal, affirming that such a long period of unauthorised absence constituted valid grounds for dismissal. This case highlights that new entrants in service, as well as long-term employees, are equally subject to dismissal if they fail to secure proper leave.
Termination Due to Unauthorised Absence Despite Medical Certificate: Jairamdas v. Commissioner, Hyderabad Division (1992 PLC(CS) 670)
In Jairamdas v. Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, the civil servant was terminated for absence from duty without leave or permission. The appellant produced a medical certificate issued by a hospital registrar to justify his absence. However, the authorities did not accept the certificate, nor did they seek a second medical opinion. The Service Tribunal deemed the termination too harsh given the medical evidence provided and reduced the penalty to the stoppage of two annual increments. This case demonstrates that while unauthorised absence is grounds for dismissal, the presence of a legitimate medical certificate may mitigate the severity of the penalty, provided it is appropriately considered by the authority.
Lack of Proper Inquiry Leading to Reinstatement: Azizur Rehman Khan v. Registrar, Cooperative Society, Sindh (1992 PLC(CS) 341)
In Azizur Rehman Khan v. Registrar, Cooperative Society, Sindh, the civil servant was dismissed without a proper inquiry being conducted. The inquiry report failed to specify the charges, and there was no evidence that the civil servant was informed of the charges against him. The Service Tribunal found that the absence of a proper inquiry and the lack of a show-cause notice constituted a violation of due process, leading to the setting aside of the dismissal. This case highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in disciplinary proceedings. Without a proper inquiry, even cases of unauthorised absence may not justify dismissal.
Dismissal Upheld After Proper Inquiry: Munawar Ali v. Commissioner, Multan Division (1992 PLC(CS) 1061)
In Munawar Ali v. Commissioner, Multan Division, the civil servant was dismissed following an inquiry that found him guilty of proceeding on leave without sanction, leading to the theft of office files. The Service Tribunal upheld the dismissal, citing that the inquiry was conducted properly and fairly. However, the tribunal modified the dismissal to removal from service, considering the civil servant’s young age. This case illustrates that when unauthorised absence results in additional serious consequences, such as the loss of important documents, dismissal is likely to be upheld, provided the inquiry is conducted properly.
Compulsory Retirement for Extended Absence After Deputation: Mrs. Z. Mahmood Mirza v. Government of the Punjab (1992 PLC(CS) 782)
In Mrs. Z. Mahmood Mirza v. Government of the Punjab, the civil servant was compulsorily retired after remaining absent beyond her deputation period. Despite applying for an extension through proper channels, her absence was deemed unauthorised after her deputation expired, leading to disciplinary proceedings. The Service Tribunal upheld the penalty of compulsory retirement, indicating that unauthorised absence, even after an extended deputation period, can lead to severe consequences such as compulsory retirement.
Termination Without Inquiry: Allah Ditta v. Director of Education, Colleges, Bahawalpur Division (1992 PLC(CS) 571)
In Allah Ditta v. Director of Education, Colleges, Bahawalpur Division, the civil servant was terminated for unauthorised absence without any inquiry being held. The Service Tribunal found that terminating a civil servant’s service without due process violated the principles of natural justice. The termination order was set aside, and the civil servant was reinstated. This case reinforces that even when the absence is unauthorised, dismissal without following due process is unlikely to be upheld.
Failure to Justify Absence: Muhammad Ashraf v. Assistant Commissioner, Nankana Sahib (1992 PLC(CS) 496)
In Muhammad Ashraf v. Assistant Commissioner, Nankana Sahib, the civil servant was dismissed for inefficiency and deliberately avoiding duty. Although the inquiry officer acknowledged the civil servant’s illness, the dismissal was upheld due to the failure to substantiate the absence with proper medical documentation. This case highlights that while illness can be a legitimate reason for absence, failure to provide adequate medical documentation may still result in dismissal.
Dismissal for Absence Without Prior Permission: Ali Asghar v. D.I.-G. Police, Hazara Division (1992 PLC(CS) 893)
In Ali Asghar v. D.I.-G. Police, Hazara Division, the civil servant was dismissed for absence from duty without prior permission. Despite submitting medical certificates, the civil servant failed to appear before a medical board as directed, leading to his dismissal. The tribunal upheld the dismissal, emphasizing that the failure to comply with directives, especially in relation to verifying medical claims, justifies dismissal.
Procedural Irregularities in Dismissal: Javid Iqbal Khan v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (1992 PLC(CS) 811)
In Javid Iqbal Khan v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the civil servant was removed from service after being found guilty of inefficiency, laziness, and absence from duty. The appellate authority recommended a fresh chance of service considering his young age. However, the Service Tribunal found procedural irregularities in the dismissal process, leading to a reconsideration of the penalty. This case underscores that even when misconduct is proven, dismissal may be reconsidered if procedural fairness is not observed.
Long-Term Wilful Absence: Muhammad Ikram v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (1992 PLC(CS) 524)
In Muhammad Ikram v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the civil servant was removed from service for wilfully absenting himself for five years. The Inquiry Officer found the charges against the civil servant to be fully substantiated. Given the significant disruption caused by his absence, particularly the loss of valuable time for students under his care, the court upheld the dismissal. This case illustrates that prolonged and wilful absence, especially when it impacts others significantly, will likely result in dismissal being upheld.
Dismissal After Disciplinary Proceedings: M.M. Shamune v. Government of Pakistan, Director-General, Post and Telegraph (1989 SCMR 1296)
In M.M. Shamune v. Government of Pakistan, the petitioner was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings for unauthorised absence. Despite challenging the dismissal on grounds that he had not been informed of the acceptance of his resignation and had thus been deprived of pension rights, the court dismissed his appeal. The court noted that the dismissal was a result of unauthorised absence, and the petitioner was fully aware of the dismissal, as evidenced by his appeal against it. This case underscores that dismissal due to unauthorised absence, following proper disciplinary procedures, is likely to be upheld.
Absence Without Response: Muhammad Ashraf v. Executive Engineer, Upper Gugera Division (1989 SCMR 1244)
In Muhammad Ashraf v. Executive Engineer, Upper Gugera Division, the civil servant was removed from service after being absent without leave for over a year. Despite attempts by the department to communicate with him, including publishing notices in newspapers, the civil servant failed to respond. The court upheld the dismissal, highlighting that the civil servant provided no satisfactory explanation for his absence. This case demonstrates that when a civil servant is absent without leave and fails to engage with disciplinary processes, dismissal is a justified outcome.
Procedural Infirmities Leading to Reconsideration: Muhammad Saleem v. Ministry of Defence (1988 PLC(CS) 441)
In Muhammad Saleem v. Ministry of Defence, the petitioner was removed from service due to alleged misconduct during his absence on leave. The court found that the inquiry was conducted in his absence and without proper notice, and that the findings were based on erroneous assumptions. Consequently, the court set aside the dismissal order, remanding the case for reconsideration. This case highlights the importance of procedural fairness, indicating that dismissal may be overturned if the disciplinary process is flawed.
Severe Penalty for Misconduct: Rahmat Khan v. University of Agriculture (1987 SCMR 1150)
In Rahmat Khan v. University of Agriculture, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service after being found guilty of both absence from duty and falsely implicating senior colleagues in a criminal case. The court upheld the penalty, noting that the quantum of punishment was within the discretion of the university authorities and was not excessive under the circumstances. This case reinforces that when absence is coupled with other serious misconduct, severe penalties like dismissal or compulsory retirement are likely to be upheld.
Necessity of Following Due Process: Ranjho Khan v. Secretary to Government of Sindh (1986 PLC 65)
In Ranjho Khan v. Secretary to Government of Sindh, the civil servant was dismissed after failing to resume duty following a five-day sanctioned leave, resulting in an absence of over a year. Despite publishing notices and receiving no response, the authorities did not serve a show-cause notice or conduct an inquiry before dismissing the civil servant. The Service Tribunal set aside the dismissal, emphasizing that even in cases of unauthorised absence, the proper procedure, including the issuance of a show-cause notice and conducting an inquiry, must be followed. This case underscores that dismissal without adhering to procedural requirements is unlikely to be upheld by the courts.
Wilful Absence and Subsequent Justification: Nazir Ahmad v. Divisional Forest Officer (1986 PLC(CS) 918)
In Nazir Ahmad v. Divisional Forest Officer, the appellant attempted to justify his absence with a medical certificate submitted after the fact. The Service Tribunal rejected this justification, noting that the wilful absence could not be excused by a medical certificate produced subsequently. The decision indicates that courts are likely to uphold dismissals in cases where the absence appears to be wilful and is not adequately justified at the time it occurs.
Retrospective Penalty for Absence: Riaz Ahmad Malik v. Governor of Punjab (1986 PLC(CS) 863)
In Riaz Ahmad Malik v. Governor of Punjab, a civil servant was dismissed retroactively for absence from duty. The Service Tribunal held that penalties could not be imposed with retrospective effect, making the dismissal order unsustainable. This case illustrates that while absence from duty can warrant dismissal, any penalties must be imposed prospectively, following a fair and transparent process.
Dismissal for Absence Without Leave: Muhammad Afzal v. Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad (1986 PLC(CS) 206)
In Muhammad Afzal v. Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, the appellant was dismissed after failing to return from a two-day sanctioned leave and subsequently leaving the country without permission. Despite submitting a medical certificate, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal, noting that the absence was unauthorised and the appeal was time-barred. The case demonstrates that unauthorised absence, especially when coupled with actions like leaving the country without approval, justifies dismissal, provided the disciplinary process is followed correctly.
Admission of Absence and Lack of Procedural Fairness: Muhammad Ikram Shah v. Member (Customs), Central Board of Revenue (1986 PLC(CS) 717)
In Muhammad Ikram Shah v. Member (Customs), Central Board of Revenue, the civil servant admitted to the facts regarding his absence from duty. The Tribunal noted that while the absence was acknowledged, the failure to provide the employee with a copy of the inquiry report was not material to the case, implying that the disciplinary action, including dismissal, was justified. This case highlights that when a civil servant admits to being absent without leave, dismissal may be upheld even if some procedural steps, like providing an inquiry report, are not strictly followed.
Mitigating Circumstances in Absence Cases: Dr. Illahi Bakhsh v. Secretary, Establishment Division (1986 PLC(CS) 74)
In Dr. Illahi Bakhsh v. Secretary, Establishment Division, the appellant, a doctor, was dismissed for wilful absence after failing to resume duty following sanctioned leave and further absences due to alleged domestic issues and an accident. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant’s commendable service record and the mitigating circumstances, including the accident, and converted the dismissal into a penalty of stoppage of increments for three years. This case underscores that while unauthorised absence can lead to dismissal, the courts may consider mitigating factors and opt for a lesser penalty if the circumstances warrant it.
Deliberate Absence and Avoidance of Medical Review: Muhammad Anwar Hussain Chauhan v. Province of Punjab (1985 PLC(CS) 796)
In Muhammad Anwar Hussain Chauhan v. Province of Punjab, the civil servant submitted a medical leave application late, after the expiry of his leave. The delay in submission led to an inference that it was done deliberately to avoid a second medical opinion. The court upheld the charge of absence from duty, suggesting that attempts to manipulate the leave system, particularly through delayed applications, can lead to disciplinary action, including dismissal. This case highlights that dismissal is likely to be upheld when a civil servant is seen as deliberately circumventing procedural requirements.
Wilful Absence After Deputation: Miss Daisy Allah Rakha v. Punjab Government (1985 PLC(CS) 792)
In Miss Daisy Allah Rakha v. Punjab Government, a nurse on deputation to a foreign country failed to get herself relieved after her deputation period ended, despite the clear terms of her service. She also failed to respond to a show-cause notice after returning to Pakistan. The Service Tribunal upheld her removal from service, noting that her continued service abroad beyond the deputation period and her failure to appear before the authorized officer constituted wilful absence. This case illustrates that dismissal is likely to be upheld when a civil servant ignores clear terms of employment and fails to justify or explain their absence.
Absence Without Sanctioned Leave: Muhammad Yar v. Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar (1985 PLC(CS) 761)
In Muhammad Yar v. Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, the civil servant applied for earned leave but absented himself without waiting for the leave to be sanctioned by the competent authority. The Service Tribunal upheld the penalty of reducing his salary by two stages, emphasizing that leave cannot be taken without prior approval. This case demonstrates that unauthorised absence, even when leave is eventually granted, can lead to disciplinary actions, including dismissal or reduction in rank.
Unauthorised Absence Despite Refused Leave Extension: Punjab Service Tribunal (1985 PLC(CS) 599)
In this case, a doctor proceeded on sanctioned leave but did not resume duty after the leave expired. Despite applying for an extension, which was refused, he did not return to work. The Service Tribunal upheld the penalty of removal from service, noting that civil servants are not entitled to leave as a right and must comply with the decisions of the sanctioning authority. This case underscores that wilful absence following a refused leave extension can justify dismissal, especially when the civil servant disregards directives to return to duty.
Procedural Lapses in Disciplinary Action: Rizwanullah v. District Malaria Control Officer, Peshawar (1985 PLC(CS) 553)
In Rizwanullah v. District Malaria Control Officer, Peshawar, the civil servant was terminated for misconduct related to absence from duty. However, the Service Tribunal found that the inquiry was not properly conducted and that the appellant was not proceeded against by the appropriate authority. The Tribunal set aside the termination and reinstated the appellant, though it allowed for a fresh and proper inquiry. This case highlights that even in cases of clear absence, dismissal may not be upheld if the disciplinary process is flawed or if the inquiry is not conducted in accordance with the rules.
Non-Compliance with Transfer Order and Questionable Medical Certificates: Muhammad Shafi v. Plant Protection Advisor (1985 SCMR 1893)
In Muhammad Shafi v. Plant Protection Advisor, the petitioner was dismissed for non-compliance with a transfer order and absence from duty. The petitioner’s plea of sickness was not believed, and the medical certificates provided were considered dubious. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, noting that the petitioner’s justifications for his absence were unconvincing. This case illustrates that when a civil servant’s reasons for absence are not credible, particularly when supported by questionable medical documentation, dismissal is likely to be upheld.
Wilful Absence and Lack of Genuine Medical Evidence: Muhammad Aslam v. Province of Punjab (1984 PLC(CS) 1078)
In Muhammad Aslam v. Province of Punjab, a police constable was dismissed for wilfully absencing himself from duty without sanctioned leave. Despite producing medical certificates to justify his absence, these were not found credible. The Service Tribunal upheld the dismissal, noting that the constable’s failure to attend a personal hearing and his repeated absences without proper sanction demonstrated a pattern of misconduct. This case illustrates that dismissal is likely to be upheld when a civil servant’s medical evidence is deemed unreliable, and there is a clear pattern of wilful absence.
Absence Without Permission and Insubordination: Muhammad Azim v. Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Sargodha Zone (1984 PLC(CS) 1073)
In Muhammad Azim v. Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Sargodha Zone, the civil servant was on medical leave but left the station without permission and repeatedly sought extensions without appearing before the medical superintendent for a second opinion. His refusal to appear for a personal hearing was also seen as insubordination. The Tribunal upheld the dismissal, citing wilful absence and insubordination as valid grounds for such disciplinary action. This case highlights that failure to comply with directives, especially in seeking extensions without proper authority, can justify dismissal.
Failure to Resume Duty After Leave: Latif Ur Rehman v. Secretary, Livestock and Dairy Development (1983 PLC(CS) 1120)
In Latif Ur Rehman v. Secretary, Livestock and Dairy Development, the civil servant proceeded on sanctioned leave but failed to resume duty after the leave expired. Despite requesting an extension, which was not granted, he did not return to duty. The Tribunal upheld the charge of wilful absence but reduced the penalty from dismissal to compulsory retirement, considering his long service of over 22 years. This case shows that while dismissal is a potential consequence for failing to resume duty, mitigating factors such as long service can lead to a lesser penalty.
Absence Due to Unforeseen Circumstances: Abdul Razzaq v. Superintendent of Police, Bahawalpur (1983 PLC(CS) 1011)
In Abdul Razzaq v. Superintendent of Police, Bahawalpur, the civil servant proceeded on sanctioned leave and was further delayed due to damage to his house caused by heavy rain. His failure to report back for duty was deemed due to an Act of God, and the charge of absence from duty was not warranted. The Tribunal recognized the extenuating circumstances and did not uphold the dismissal. This case demonstrates that when absence is due to unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstances, dismissal may not be justified.
Wilful Absence and Misleading Medical Certificates: Mir Nazir Ahmad v. Province of Punjab (1983 PLC(CS) 912)
In Mir Nazir Ahmad v. Province of Punjab, the civil servant went on leave to visit holy shrines abroad and failed to resume duty after the leave expired, repeatedly extending his leave without proper sanction. Notices were published, but he did not respond, leading to his dismissal. The Tribunal upheld the dismissal, noting that civil servants cannot neglect their duties and then claim their position after grossly neglecting their responsibilities. This case reinforces that dismissal is likely to be upheld when a civil servant wilfully absents themselves without proper sanction and fails to respond to official notices.
Insubordination and Wilful Absence: Abdus Sattar Ijaz v. Secretary, Communication and Works Dept (1983 PLC(CS) 451)
In Abdus Sattar Ijaz v. Secretary, Communication and Works Dept, the civil servant applied for an extension of leave on medical grounds but failed to appear before the designated medical officer for verification. His continued absence and refusal to follow directives led to his dismissal. The Tribunal upheld the dismissal, recognizing the civil servant’s conduct as wilful avoidance of duty and insubordination. This case illustrates that when a civil servant consistently avoids duty and disregards instructions, dismissal is a justified outcome.
Questionable Medical Certificates and Failure to Resume Duty: Sh. Nazir Ahmad v. District Education Officer (1983 PLC(CS) 116)
In Sh. Nazir Ahmad v. District Education Officer, the civil servant failed to resume duty after being transferred, citing illness and producing questionable medical certificates. The Tribunal found that the certificates were unreliable and that the civil servant’s absence was wilful. The dismissal was upheld as the absence was not justified. This case highlights that questionable medical documentation, particularly when used to avoid duty, can lead to dismissal being upheld.
Prejudice in Disciplinary Action: Muhammad Ibrahim Bajwa v. Chairman, Pakistan Railways (1983 PLC(CS) 844)
In Muhammad Ibrahim Bajwa v. Chairman, Pakistan Railways, the civil servant faced disciplinary action and was transferred, despite genuine personal reasons that made the transfer challenging. The Tribunal noted that the disciplinary action appeared to be influenced by personal prejudice rather than objective assessment. While the dismissal was not upheld, the case was altered to a lesser penalty. This case demonstrates that when disciplinary actions appear to be driven by prejudice, the courts may intervene to ensure fair treatment.
Conclusion
The courts in Pakistan take a strict view of civil servants’ absence from duty, especially when it is wilful, prolonged, or coupled with insubordination. Dismissal is likely to be upheld in cases where the absence is unsupported by credible evidence, where the civil servant repeatedly avoids duty, or where there is a failure to follow proper procedures for leave. However, the judiciary also ensures that disciplinary actions are conducted fairly, and any indications of prejudice or procedural lapses can result in the modification or reversal of dismissal orders. The balance between maintaining discipline and ensuring fairness is a critical consideration in the judicial approach to such cases.
Call for Free Legal Advice +92-3048734889
Email : [email protected]
https://joshandmakinternational.com
