After carefully considering the arguments advanced by both the sides and after having gone through the available record, I tend to agree with the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was transferred to a remote station lacking basic facilities including transport and accommodation etc. Being a female Medical Officer and a mother as well, her inability to comply with such posting orders in the absence of departmental support was plausible and justified. The Wed-lock Policy mandates that efforts be made to post spouses at the same station, with a preference to the wife being posted at the place of her husband’s service. This policy is in consonance with Article 35 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which obliges the State to protect the family, the mother and the child. Despite numerous representations made by the appellant, the department neither rejected nor accepted the request of the appellant, nor did communicate her any decision. Such silence and inaction on the part of the department amounts to administrative apathy. Admittedly Section 7(f)(ii) of the Punjab Employces Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 provides for major penalties, including removal from service, in cases where unauthorized absence exceeds one year. However, in the present case, the absence cannot be classified as willful as it was occasioned under compelling and documented personal circumstances. The superior courts have consistently held that absence due to unavoidable circumstances and on account of reasons beyond control cannot be treated as deliberate or willful so as to justify imposition of major penalties. In such a situation, the impugned orders passed against the appellant do not carry weight and hence are not sustainable in the eyes of law..