2025 PLC(CS) 1103 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Syed ZEESHAN ALI VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary (IT & Telecom), Ministry of Information Technology, Government of Pakistan and Chairman, Islamabad Willful absence from duty---Removal from service---Petitioner remained absent from duty for a period of five months without any explanation---Petitioner was an employee of PTCL (employer) and was granted earned leave which he utilized to travel abroad---Upon expiry of the sanctioned leave, the petitioner (employee) applied for two years' extraordinary leave without pay, citing a job offer abroad---His leave request was rejected by PTCL advising him to resume duties immediately to avoid disciplinary action---Despite this direction, the petitioner (employee) remained absent and only communicated his willingness to rejoin PTCL five months after being instructed to resume duty, without offering any explanation for the delay---Petitioner (employee) was served with the impugned removal from service order allegedly passed without any formal charge sheet or opportunity of personal hearing, leading to the present Constitutional petition---Held: It was significant to note that five months after being told to resume duty immediately or else face disciplinary proceedings without giving any explanation for the five month delay the petitioner (employee) was again willing to join the respondents (employer) despite his request for two years extension in leave being refused five months earlier---During the five month period the respondents (employer) were left without the service of the petitioner (employee) which they might have vitally needed and his absence might have adversely affected their business as they might have had to find a suitable replacement---After not hearing from the petitioner (employee) for over five months after his request from extended leave was declined the respondents (employer) had every reason to believe that the petitioner (employee) would not be returning to work from them as he had informed the respondents (employer) that he had found a new job abroad---In fact the petitioner (employee) by his conduct and attitude over five months period did not appear to have cared less about the situation which he had left his employer in what to speak about deliberately and willfully violating his terms and conditions of service---Interest of the petitioner (employee) in returning to his job with respondents (employer) appeared to be tainted with mala fide and such conduct did not allow him to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court as he did not invoke the same with clean hands---The petitioner (employee) was served with a show cause notice which he failed to reply to and was thereafter lawfully removed from service---Deliberate absence from service without explanation was sufficient ground for removal from service---Disciplinary proceedings were taken by the respondents (employer) against the petitioner (employee) on account of his unexplained absenteeism which was violation of his terms and conditions of service which led to his removal from service following a show cause notice---Petitioner's (employee) removal from service was upheld given his prolonged absence from duty without explanation which was willful and deliberate---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Employee's duty to abide by the terms of service---Scope---An employee is subject to the terms and conditions of service as laid down by his employer and he is expected to abide by them failing which disciplinary proceedings might be initiated against him---It is the obligation of the employee to abide by his terms and conditions of service to enable the smooth functioning of his employer's organization and discourage others from not complying with their terms and conditions of service---Without such compliance by all employees the employer's business is likely to be adversely affected and loss might even be caused to the business.

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC