Find a Lawyer

Case No. 88/1558 of 1982, decided on 13th December. 1982.

‑‑‑S. 4 (1) (c)‑Jurisdiction‑Civil servant compulsorily retired Departmental appeal rejected in March, t 966‑‑‑‑Held: Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon decisions of departmental authorities taken before 1st July, 1969.

Masud Ahmed Riaz for Appellant.

Haroonur Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

Agha Hussain Naqvi, retired Labour Inspector has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Director of Labour Welfare, Government of the Punjab and Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Labour Department, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 8th August, 1964 and final order, dated 18th January, 1982 be set aside and he be re‑instated in service with all back benefits including, consequential benefits of seniority1pro ‑Forma promotions etc.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a charge‑sheet and statement of allegations on 12th October 1963 on the allegations that he had acquired the property which was beyond his known sources of income and that he did not obtained permission of the competent authority before purchasing the said property. The appellant submitted his explanation to the charge‑sheet which was not considered satisfactory and Chowdhary Muhammad Hussain was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after holding the enquiry held the appellant guilty of the charges and submitted his report to the competent authority. The appellant was ‑served with second show‑cause notice and also supplied a copy of the enquiry report and was called upon to explain his position. The appellant submitted his explanation on 5th February, 1964 and opted for compulsory retirement. The competent authority examined the record, heard him personally and was not satisfied with the defence of the appellant and held the charges to have been proved; thus he was compulsorily retired from service w. e. f. 8th August, 1964. This order was announced in the presence of the appellant Mr. M. Mohsin, C. S. P., the then Director of Labour Welfare, West Pakistan, Lahore and a copy thereof was supplied to the appellant on 13th August, 1964. The appellant has averred in the Memorandum of appeal that he filed an appeal on 18th August, 1964 before the appellate authority which was followed by various reminders, dated 4th April, 1965, 4th August, 1965 and by an appeal to the Governor for early decisions of the case. He has claimed that his appeal was rejected vide order, dated 19th January, 1982. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents. 1t has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the enquiry against him was not conducted strictly in accordance with the Government Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1960 and that he was not associated with the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. It has also been argued that the Enquiry Officer has not appreciated the evidence against him in its true perspective and has arrived at an erroneous conclusion. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has controverted the arguments of the appellant and has submitted that the present appeal is time barred because his appeal was rejected by the appellate authority i. e., Secretary to Government of West Pakistan vide his letter No. Lab. (1)‑4‑2/64, dated 4th March, 1966 and the latest order, dated 19th January, 1982 would not enlarge the time limit for filing the present appeal. It has also been submitted that since the impugned orders were passed much before the crucial date 1st July, 1969 so this Tribunal has no jurisdiction as laid down in rule 4 (1) (c) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. On merits it has been submitted that the appellant has been rightly held guilty by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the competent authorities and the impugned orders do not call for any inter ference.

5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record very carefully. Since two important legal objections have been raised on behalf of the respondents so we dwell upon them first. The important objections is with regard to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to hear this appeal against the order passed before 1st July, 1969. For this purpose we would reproduce the relevant provision of law for ready reference:‑

"Section 4 (1) ......

Provided that :‑------

(a) ....

(b) . . . .

(c) No appeal shall lie to a Tribunal against an order or a decision of a departmental authority made at any time before 1st July, 1969.

The relevant provision quoted above from the Punjab Service Tribunals Act clearly shows that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the orders and decisions of the Departmental Authorities taken before Ist July, 1969. Record shows that the appeal of the appellant was rejected by the Government by letter dated 4th March, 1966 referred to by the learned District Attorney. Since the appeal was rejected on 4th March, 1966 much before the crucial date, so we hold that we have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present appeal. With regard to the plea of limitation we agree with the learned District Attorney that the present appeal is barred by time running over many years because the final effective order determining the rights of the parties had been passed by, the appellate authority on 4th March, 1966 and the appeal filed by the appellant on 28th December, 1981 and 10th January, 1982 and the order, dated 19th January, 1982 would not enlarge the time for limitation. Thus we hold that the present appeal is barred by time. In view of these findings we do not feel any necessity to give any findings on the merits of the appeal.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is neither competent nor is within time. Thus the appeal is dismissed.

M.I.

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.