English Shorthand Passage pdf | Legal Shorthand Passage pdf | Shorthand Passage Supreme Court Order Part-III pdf

 

7.         In the face of such absence from duty of the respondent, which being admitted, there was no need to hold a regular enquiry because this Court in the case of Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Division, Islamabad vs. Mamoon Ahmed Malik (2020 SCMR 1154), has already held that where the fact of absence from duty being admitted on the record, there was no need for holding of a regular enquiry for that there was no disputed fact involved to be enquired into.

 

English Shorthand Passage pdf | Legal Shorthand Passage pdf | Shorthand Passage Supreme Court Order Part-III pdf



 


8.         As regards the observation of the High Court that the absence period of the respondent was condoned as his joining report was accepted by issuing stern warning to the respondent, no document is available on the record which may show the period of absence of the respondent was condoned or his joining accepted or he was issued stern warning by the appellants. The only thing evident from the record is that by Memorandum dated 07.04.2016, the service of respondent was terminated from 31.10.2014 and the intervening period, from the date of absence from duty till the date of termination, was treated as Extra Ordinary Leave without pay not counting towards Service, Promotion, Increment & Pensionary Benefits, etc. The treatment of absence period as  Extra Ordinary Leave without pay has already been dealt with by this Court in the case of NAB through its Chairman vs. Muhammad Shafique (2020 SCMR 425) and Kafyat Ullah Khan vs. Inspector General of Police, Islamabad and another (Civil Appeal No.1661 of 2019), where it has been held that while imposing penalty on the employee in the case of unauthorized absence, the absence period treated as an  Extra Ordinary Leave is not a punishment, rather is a treatment given to the absence period, which employer is entitled to do.

 

9.         As regards the observation of the High Court in the impugned judgment that the order of termination has been passed under the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1980. The very Memorandum dated 07.04.2016, by which the service of the respondent was terminated.