Find a Lawyer

Case No. 587 of 1982, decided on 13th December, 1982.

‑‑ S. 4‑Limitation‑Appeal barred by time‑Civil servant had no reason to proceed before Civil Court when Service Tribunal in existence ‑Condonation of delay thus caused, refused.

Muhammad Ashraf Bajwa for Appellant.

Haroonur Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

Nazar Muhammad Bajwa has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order dated 10th October, 1979 passed by the Deputy Director Food, Lahore Region, Lahore, whereby he was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 82,200 as shortage of wheat at P. R. Centre, Chuharkana, District Sheikhupura and the order, dated 7th March, 1981 passed by the Director of Food Lahore Region, whereby his appeal was dismissed. He has im pleaded Government of the Punjab through Secretary Food Department, Lahore, Director Food, Punjab, Lahore and Deputy Director Food, Lahore Region, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal be has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was held responsible for shortage of wheat when he was working as Foodgrain Supervisor along with Malik Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Aslam Inspectors. All these three persons were required to pay the loss in the ratio of 40%, 40% and 20 /p, respectively. The order was passed by the Deputy Director Food Lahore Region, Lahore. The appellant preferred an appeal, which was rejected by Respondents No. 2 on 7th March, 1981. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Depart ment end have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned District Attorney has raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the appeal as being hopelessly time‑barred. Learned counsel for the appellant has however, taken a plea that the delay may be condoned, as he had filed application under section 5 of the Limita tion Act. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant instituted a civil suit on 12th April, 1981 therefore, the period spent before that forum be excluded. The fact of the matter is that im pugned order against the appellant was passed on 16th September, 1979 against which he filed an appeal before the Director Food which was dismissed on 7th March, 1981. When the suit was filed before the Civil Judge the Tribunal was very much in existence and appellant has no reason to proceed before a wrong forum when the law was fully settled with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts etc. concerning service matters. Moreover there is no affidavit on the record by any lawyer to show that it was on the wrong advice, that the appellant agitated this matter before the Civil Court.

6. In view of the above the appeal is definitely time‑barred by a number of years and we do not find any cogent reason to condone the delay.

7. The result is we dismiss the appeal as hopelessly time‑barred as the final order was passed against the appellant on 7th March, 1981 and the appellant filed this appeal on 4th December, 1982 i.e. one year and about 9 months after the final order, without giving any cogent reasons for condona tion of delay. There will be no order as to costs,

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.