Find a Lawyer

Case No. 574/1397 of 1981, decided on 28th July, 1982.

----S. 4‑Appeal before Tribunal‑Limitation ‑ Repeated represen tations not admissible under rules ‑ Cannot extend limitation Assistant Sub‑inspector of Police availing of right of review petition against penalty to I.‑G. of Police‑Making further review petition to I.‑G. of Police not admissible under rules‑Limitation for appeal before Tribunal, held, started from date of communication of order on first review petition and further review petition would not extend same.

Mushtaq Masood for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney, for Respondents.

. Muhammad Yousaf, Assistant Sub‑Inspector of Police has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974 against the order dated 20‑4‑1981 passed by the Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore whereby the penalty of censure was imposed by him and the period in which he remained out of service was ordered to be treated as leave without pay, He has also assailed the order of the Additional Inspector‑General of Police dated 22‑9‑1981 whereby his review petition against the order dated 20‑4‑1981 was rejected.

2 Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was posted as Incharge of the Judicial Guard Room, Gujranwala, he entrusted Bashir alias Bashira accused to Ghulam Mustafa, Constable and Muhammad Boota Constable for escorting him to District Jail Gujranwala and on the way the said accused Bashira escaped away alongwith hand cuffs which were in the belt of Foot Constable Ghulam Mustafa A show‑cause notice was served upon the appellant, he was heard in person and was dismissed from service by the order of S. P. dated 19‑2‑1980. His appeal was also rejected by the D. I.‑G. Police vide order dated 20‑4‑1980. He filed a review petition against the said order to I.‑G. P. which was partly accepted and punishment of dismissal was reduced to censure by the order of Additional Inspector‑General of Police dated 20‑4‑1981. The appellant filed a review petition on 13‑5-1981 which was rejected by the I.‑G. P. vide order dated 15‑9‑1981, endorsed to the appellant on 22‑9‑1981 on the ground that no second review was permissible under the rules. Hence this appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondent. At the very out set the learned D. A. has raised a preliminary objection that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed as being time‑barred. He has argued that according to clause (v) of para. 18 regarding the expunction of adverse remarks as contained in the revised I.‑G.P's. Standing Order No 32 no second representation is competent against the final order. He has also submitted that even according to section 21 (ii) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 where no provision for appeal or review exists in the rules in respect of any order, the civil servant aggrieved by any such order can file "a representation against it to the authority next above the authority which made the order By relying on these two provisions the learned District Attorney has submitted that the order passed by the Addl. L‑G.P. dated 20‑4‑1981 was the final order within the meaning of section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act and in these circumstances the appellant should have filed the appeal before this Tribunal within one month of the communication of the said order. As such he has submitted that appeal is time‑barred. We called upon the learned counsel for the appellant to controvert this argument of the learned D. A. but he could not give any plausible explanation as to why he filed the second representation to the I.‑G. P. on I3‑5‑1981. He has not been able to show us any sufficient reasons for the condonation of delay which could persuade us to condone the delay. We have repeatedly held in many cases that the, period of limitation cannot be extended by repeated appeals and representations. In the present case the order dated 20‑4‑1981 was the final order within the meaning of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act and the appellant was required to file an appeal before us within one month of the communication of the said order This having not been done so, we are constrained to hold that the appeal is certainly out of time because the order passed by I.‑G. P. on 15‑9‑1981 conveyed to S. P. on 22‑9‑1981 did not confer with right on the appellant to file the present appeal.

In view of the above analysis we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is not within time we hereby dismiss the same as being time‑barred.

However, there will be no order as to costs.

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.