Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.151 of 1983, heard on 14th March, 1989.

(Against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 13‑12‑1982 in Case No.88/1558 of 1982).

‑‑‑S.4‑‑Appeal, disposal of‑‑Finding of fact with regard to disposal of departmental appeal recorded by Service Tribunal in conformity with record‑‑Service Tribunal, held, on that finding had no jurisdiction to entertain appeal which was incompetent.

Syed Afzal Haider and Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, Asstt. A.‑G. for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 14th March, 1984.

‑ The petitioner, a former civil servant, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 13th December, 1982 whereby it was held that his appeal was neither competent nor was it within time.

The petitioner was at one time employed as Labor Inspector in the Provincial Government. He was charge‑sheeted and an inquiry was held into his conduct of acquiring property beyond his known sources of income and without the permission of the competent authority. When called upon to show cause against disciplinary action on 5th February, 1964, he opted for retirement. He was compulsorily retired from 8th of August, 1964. He preferred a departmental appeal. He moved applications to the Governor in 1981 seeking re‑instatement in service whereupon he was told that his case had been examined and the department was unable to accede to his request. He took this to be the final disposal of his matter and challenged the refusal to re‑instate him as without lawful authority.

The Service Tribunal took the view that the appellate authority had disposed of his departmental appeal on 4th of March, 1966 and the subsequent effort made by the petitioner in 1981 did not enlarge the period of limitation. Keeping in view section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act the Service Tribunal held that no appeal lay to the Tribunal against an order or decision of a departmental authority made any time before 1st of July, 1969. It was held to be incompetent.

The petitioner's main grievance is that his appeal was never disposed of and he was never informer of its disposal.

We find that a finding of fact with regard to the disposal of his departmental appeal in 1966 has been recorded by the Tribunal. After getting the record from the Department, we find that this finding of fact is in conformity with the record. On that finding the Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and it was incompe tent before it. .

The petitioner having reconciled to his retirement as along ago as 1966 could not revive his re‑instatement in service in 1981. The order invoked by the petitioner for enlarging the period of limitation and for conferring a fresh cause of action is of no avail to him. Leave to appeal is refused.

M. Z. M.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.