Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 431 of 1976, decided oil 11^th February, 1979.

(On appeal from the order dated 24-4-1975 of the Service Tribunal, Government. of Pakistan, Islamabad, passed in Appeal No. 107 (L) of 1974).

-----Art. 185 (3)---Leave to appeal-Inquiry--Service matter--Plea as to evidence of an important witness having not been recorded in, presence of petitioner Government servant neither taken in grounds of appeal filed before Service Tribunal nor raised in arguments before such Tribunal--Service Tribunal stating departmental inquiry having been conducted according to rules and procedure duly followed- Misappropriation of money having been duly proved in course of inquiry and competent authority having accordingly dismissed petitioner from service, leave to appeal refused.--[Civil services].

Mian Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Salahudin,

Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 11th February, 1979.

The petitioner was serving as Sib-Post Master Baserpur, Sahiwal Division. On checking accounts of tips; said Post Office it was discovered that Government dues had been mis-appropriated by him. He was, accordingly, charge-sheeted anti an inquiry was ordered on the ground of misappropriation of Government money amounting to Rs. 11,105.66. The petitioner was found guilty and dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Sahiwal Division. An appeal was filed against the said order before the Post Master-General, which too was dismissed. The petitioner thereupon moved the Service Tribunal through an appeal. This appeal was dismissed by it on 24th April, 1975. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

The petition is barred by 299 days. No application for condonation of delay has been filed. However, in para. 8 of the petition for leave to appeal the reason or not filing the petition within time has been alluded to as follows;

"Notice on this appeal was issued to the respondent No: 2, and in reply it was contended that the Rule relied upon by the petitioner has been deleted in December, 1963, and was substituted by a new Rule i.e Rule No. 149, which did not require that the departmental action should be stayed and should be made dependant upon trial in a Court of law and the same could be lawfully taken before and after, the trial or simultaneously therewith. The learned respondent No. 1, after the receipt of the report formed a technical view that Rule No. 149 as substituted knocked the bottom out of the technical plea varied by the petitioner. The petitioner when faced with the situation of change in law about which he was not aware earlier made a request through his counsel for permission to raise additional pleas on the merits of the case so that the petitioner could assail the validity and legality of the orders passed by respondents Nos. 2 and S. After hearing arguments on this plea as well as the merits of the case, the judgment was reserved. It was ultimately, announced on 24-4-1975, but the same was not conveyed to the petitioner. He ultimately obtained a copy of the said order on paying visit to Lahore after having waited painfully for a prolonged period."

The above-mentioned explanation, apart from the fact that it is not supported by the affidavit of the petitioner, is altogether vague. The date on which the petitioner learnt of the passing of the older; how long thereafter the application for grant of the coo y was submitted and why the petition to this Court was not filed almost immediately after the receipt of the copy have not been mentioned. The perusal of the certified copy shows that the said copy was ready for delivery on 6-3-1976; though received on 8-3-1976. -The appeal was filed on 211-3-197 but no explanation, as already pointed out; has been furnished why this further delay of 21 days in filing the petition for leave occurred. In these circumstances the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

As a matter of grace the petitioner was beard on merits and the only contention raised before us was that the statement made during the inquiry proceedings by Mr. F. M. Tahir, Inspector Post Office. Pak Pattan, was not recorded in his presence. It was, however, con ceded before us that this objection was not taken in the grounds of appeal filed before the Service Tribunal, nor is this matter adverted to, in the order passed by it, which shows that it was not raised before it even during the arguments. On the other hand, the Service Tribunal has observed that the departmental inquiry was conducted according to the rules and the procedure was duly followed. The misappropriation of Government money was fully proved in the course of the inquiry and the competent authority accordingly dismissed the petitioner from service.

The over-all conclusion is that this petition must fail and is accordingly hereby 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.