Find a Lawyer

Case No.581 of 1882 decided on 9^th January 1983.

-- S. 4 read with Removal from Service (Special Provisions) Regulation. 1972 [C. M. L. A' s], No. 114 and Martial Law Order, 1977 [C. M. L. A's] No. 23-Retirement under M. L. R. No. 114 Remedy-Either before Review Board under M. L. O. 23 or before Service Tribunal-Petition before Review Board considered and rejected-Order of Review Board final-Further appeal before Service Tribunal, held, not maintainable.

Muhammad Saleahe Siddiqui for Appellant.

Maroon-ur-Rashid Cheema for Respondent. JUDGMENT

Mr. Ghulam Rasool Bodla, ex-Sub-Engineer has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through the Secretary to Govern ment of Punjab, Irrigation Department, Lahore and the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Bahawalpur as respondents. This appeal is at preliminary stage of hearing.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant-passed in March, 1972 be set aside, the appellant be treated in the continuous service of the Government of the Punjab with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Sub- Engineer in the Irrigation Department in the year 1972. The appellant was compulsory retired on 18th March, 1972. The appellant made a petition against these retirement orders which was duly heard and scrutinized by the Punjab Review Board under M. L. O. 23. On considering its recom mendations and after personally examining service record of the appel lant, M. L. A. Zone A' was pleased to uphold the orders of his retirement under review vide Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore Order No. S. O. (S) 261-R B 1/78, dated 25th March, 1978. The appellant did not feel conten ted with this order and according to him, he made representation to the Cabinet Secretary, Rawalpindi which was forwarded to the Chief Secre tary, Punjab on 14th January, 1979 and is still pending. According to the appellant, no decision has been conveyed to him. The appellant appealed before the President of Pakistan and C. M. L. A. and vide letter dated 31st October, 1982, the appellant was directed to file appeal before the Service Tribunal for seeking justice. Hence this appeal

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appel lant was compulsorily retired in 1972 under M. L. R. 114 during the regime of Mr. Z. A. Bhutto due to the enmity of Ghulam Ahmad, Executive Engineer and Muhammad Akhtar Qureshi, S. E. of the Irrigation Depart ment towards the appellant in that while posted at Rahimyar Khan in the year 1963, he had pointed out the embezzlement of Government money by these two officers at that time. Thus the said officers fostered enmity against the appellant and made adverse reports against the appellant. This resulted in his compulsory retirement during the year 1972, The learned counsel of the appellant, further submitted that thus the appel lant has been punished due to enmity and the orders of his compulsory retirement are liable to be quashed and the appellant be reinstated in service with all back benefits. The learned District Attorney took a strong exception to the appeal by submitting that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction in maintainability of this appeal as the appellant has already availed the opportunity of review petition under M. L, O. 23 and the Punjab Service Tribunal is now not competent to entertain this appeal any further. It was also submitted by the learned District Attorney that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred After the rejection of the appellant's review peti tion by the Chief Secretary, Punjab vide his order dated 25th March, 1978 the appellant should have come to the Tribunal within 30 days, as the appellant had exhausted his right of his review petition and the proper forum left was only this Tribunal. Thus his appeal is hopelessly time- barred by more than four years.

5. I have given my anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have gone through the appeal in detail. So far as the objection regar ding maintainability of the appeal is concerned. I can conveniently dispose it off by placing reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in Appeal No. 17 of 1978 (Dr. Muhammad Elias Dubash v. Government of the Punjab) decided on 22nd October, 1979 in which we had held that the reined} under M. L. O. 23 and that of an appeal before this Tribunal are alternate remedies and a person who avails a remedy under M. L. O. 23 would note be permitted to file an appeal before this Tribunal. Since the appellant had admittedly filed a review petition under M. L. O. 23 before the Review A Board constituted for the said purposes, which was considered and rejected as such the present appeal would not be competent before us. So far as the objection regarding limitation is concerned, it is conceded by the appellant that he was retired under M. L. R. 114 and his review petition was dismissed by the Review Board on 25th March, 1978. Since no other departmental remedy is provided under any law or the rules, so the order passed by the Review Board would be a final order for the purpose of this appeal. This appeal having been tiled in 1982 would be certainly time-barred by more than four years. Thus, I agree with the learned District Attorney and hold that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred.

6. In view of the above detailed discussion, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

There will be no orders as to costs.

1. E.

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.