Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 315 of 1978, decided on 22nd November 1980.
(On appeal against judgment dated the 5th April 1978 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore).
---- S. 4 and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212-Appeal dismissed by Tribunal as barred by time due to petitioner having not acted diligently-No fault found with order of Tribunal-Leave to appeal refused.
Ch. Mushtaq Masud, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 22nd November 1980.
-Muhammad Sharif petitioner a Patwari, was charge-sheeted by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector,' Bahawalnagar on 3-5-1971. An inquiry was held and the Deputy Commissioner issued a show-cause notice to him. He was compulsorily retired from Service. He filed an appeal to the Commissioner which was rejected on 21-1-1972. He then filed a suit before the Senior Civil Judge, Chisbtian, District' Bahawalpur challenging these orders and the same abated in consequence of section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act and on 8-10-1974 the Senior Civil Judge declared it to be so. He applied for certified copies of certain orders to the Deputy Commissioner and the office declined to give him those copies. He therefore, filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal on 6-2-1975, which has been rejected as barred by limitation. Hence this Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal. .
2. It has been submitted before us that since he could not get the copies of the orders from the Deputy Commissioner's office where for, he had to file the appeal after the period of limitation had expired.
3. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that---
"Thus for about 38 days i. e. from 30-12-74 to 6-2-75 there was no Documentary evidence available with the appellant to show that h made any efforts in this behalf."
The Tribunal, therefore, held that he had not acted diligently.
4. We find no fault with the order of the Tribunal and, therefore, dismissed this petition.
Petition dismissed.
]
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer