Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑226 of 1978, decided on 23rd January, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 15‑10‑1977 passed ‑in the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No. 24 (R) of 1977).

‑‑ S. 4 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑Appeal barred by limitation ‑Condonation of delay‑Tribunal applying its mind to condonation application but feeling dissatisfied with ground urged and dismissing application‑‑Held, Supreme Court does not sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by Tribunals‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Ahmadullah Faruqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 23rd January, 1980,

The petitioner, who held the post of Assistant Films Producer (Grade 18) in the Ministry of Information and Broad casting, was proceeded against under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. After the inquiry was completed against him, he was found guilty and consequently the President of Pakistan. who was the competent officer, reduced him from Grade 18 to Grade 16. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner filed a review petition, but the same was rejected, vide order dated 29th December, 1976. On receipt of the copy of the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Service Tribunal on 18th February, 1977, but since it was ex facie barred by limitation, he filed an application for the condonation of delay on the ground that owing to misunderstanding he had first filed the appeal before the Director of his Department and if the time spent in the Directorate was condoned. then his appeal was within time. The Tribunal, however, felt dissatisfied and dismissed the said application on the ground that "The plea taken in the condonation application that the petitioner was misguided by the respondent that the appeal to the Tribunal was to be filed through him cannot be acceptedas valid and reasonable ground for condonation of delay".

In seeking leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said finding recorded by the Tribunal was not only harsh but illegal and so the case would require reconsideration by this Court in the interest of justice. We are afraid, there is no force in this contention. It is clear to us that the Tribunal, which was seized of the matter in its proper jurisdiction had applied its mind to the condonation application filed before it by the petitioner, but feeling dissatisfied with the ground urged therein dismissed the said application. It is well settled that this Court, does not sit in appeal over the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunals, and so it is unfortunate that the petitioner must suffer.

This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.