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.
Case No. 36 of 1982, decided on 3rd June, 1982.
‑‑‑ S. 4‑‑Appeal before Tribunal‑Maintainable only after exhaust ing departmental remedy‑Appellant seeking relief against penalty of removal from service pursuant to disciplinary proceedings‑Right of departmental appeal not availed of‑Appeal before Tribunal, in circumstances, held, not maintainable.
Aslam Awan for Appellant.
Haroon‑ur‑Rashld Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent.
In case of Nazir Ahmad Foodgrains Supervisor who has been removed from service vide order dated 28‑12‑1981, by Deputy Director Food, Multan and has also been called upon to make good loss of Rs. 1,73,258.20 learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order is not a speaking order and the appel lant has been made responsible for the liability which was vicarious in nature by ignoring others who are also responsible for this loss.
Learned D.A. has submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed under section 4 (I) (a) of the Punjab Service Tribunals tact, wherein it has been laid down that no appeal is maintainable by this Tribunal unless and until persons who have been proceeded against, has exhausted all the available remedies with them. Learned counsel has produced before us a copy of the appeal filed by the appellant with the Director of Food under registered cover. We have examined the copy and the receipt so attached with it and find that the same does not disclose, when it was filed as receipt is not a carbon copy of original but seems to be receipt in original itself. The representative of Deputy Director Food, Multan is before us and has categorically stated that no such appeal was received by the Department on behalf of the appellant. It has been further pointed out by the learned D.A. that in the contents of the appeal the ap pellant has no where mentioned that he had filed an appeal before the Deputy Director Food, next higher authority and was awaiting the result of the same.
In view of the above we have no alternative to find that this appeal is not maintainable under section 4 (1) (6) of P.S.T. Act, as the appellant has failed to exhaust the remedy so available to him, we dismiss the appeal in limine.
A. E. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer