Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 125 (R) of 1982, decided on 20th July, 1983.

‑‑ Ss. 4 (1) (a) & 5 (2) ‑ Appeal before Tribunal ‑ Powers of Tribunal‑Appellant producing forged documents‑Directions for initiating criminal proceedings for such fraud against appellant can be issued by Tribunal‑Appellant in order to prove that remedy of departmental appeal had been exhausted producing copy of forged letter to the effect that his appeal had been rejected‑Tribunal taking strong exception to such tactics adopted by civil servants specially when represented by counsel who undoubtedly tender honest advice to them in accordance with ethics of their profession‑Tribunal re fraining from taking any strong action for cheating but strongly warning that no such act on part of serving or retired civil servant shall be excused and would not hesitate in moving authorities for initiating criminal action.

M. S. Siddiqi for Appellant.

Syed Muhammad Shahudul Haque for the State.

Date of institution/hearing :12th July, 1982/18th July, 1983.

This appeal, under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, is directed against order dated 8th September. 1981, of the Director‑General, Population Planning, where by the appellant's services was terminated under section 6 of the Population Welfare Planning Programme (Appointment and Termination of Service) Ordinance, 1981.

2. Syed Shahudul Huque, appearing on behalf of respondent de partment, has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is incom petent, inasmuch as the mandatory provision of proviso (a) to section 4 (1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which provides for filing of an appeal or representation to the departmental authority before coming to the Tribunal, has not been complied with.

3. The aforesaid objection taken on behalf of the respondent was specifically raised, in reply to paras. 5 and 6 of the appeal and the appellant was quite aware that he has to establish that a representation was actually made and a reply thereto was received by the appellant. The appellant, however, felt contented with filing of a typed copy of the so-called departmental appeal made to the Secretary, Population Division allegedly on 5‑10‑1981 and a typed copy of undated letter said to have been received from the Deputy Secretary (Administration) of the Population Division with reference to his appeal dated 5‑10‑1981. The learned counsel for State has categorically stated that no appeal dated 5‑10‑1981 was received in the office of the Secretary, Population Division, and that no undated letter, as alleged by the, appellant, was sent to him. The files of the respondent department do not show that any appeal was made by the appellant, nor there is any indication that any reply was sent to the appel lant. We repeatedly asked the appellant to produce the original undated letter in which reference to the appeal of 5‑10‑1981 was made by the Deputy Secretary (Administration), but he failed to produce the same. Undoubtedly, the copy of the undated letter is a forged document and its original does not exist. We take strong exception to such tactics adopted by the civil servant, specially when they are represented by counsel who undoubtedly tender honest advice to them in accordance with the ethics of their profession. We refrain from taking any action against the appellant for cheating the Tribunal, but we strongly warn that no such act on the part of a civil servant whether in service or retired, shall henceforth be excused, and we will not hesitate in moving the authorities for initiating criminal action against such frauds.

4. In view of what we have started aboves we hold that the present appeal is incompetent and dismiss the same. The security fee shall stand confiscated towards costs of the appeal.

5. Parties to be informed.

A. B. Appeal 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.