Find a Lawyer

Case No. 8011036 of 1981, decided on 30th December, 1982.

‑‑ S. 4 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12‑Review Service Tribunal‑Cannot act as civil Court after disposal of appeal and review its own order except to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes‑Complaint before Service Tribunal seeking review of its orders and also action for criminal proceedings against appellant in appeal already decided on grounds that order of Tribunal was obtained by producing forged document and that record of Tribunal's office was subsequently tampered with to destroy proof‑No direct evidence to support allegations of tampering with record or produc tion of alleged forged document‑Tribunal, held, could not review its own order and in absence of any direct evidence complaint dismissed.

Shahid Hamid for the Complainant

Muhammad Aslam Virk for Respondents.

This is a complaint filed by Mehr Ghulam Rasool, Assistant Agricultural Engineer, Faisalabad, against Messrs Falak Sher and Abdul Salam, Assistant Agricultural Engineers, Jhelum. In this complaint it has been stated that Appeal No. 80/1036/81, was decided by this Tribunal on 15th July, 1981 wherein Messrs Falak Sher and Abdul Salam were appellants and the Government of the Punjab etc. were respondents. During hearing of the said appeal the appellants produced and placed on record of this Tribunal an attested copy of notification dated 19th July 1971 of the N.‑W. F. P. Government. This was filed on the record in support of their claim for Jr. Class I status w. e. f. 22nd July 1971. The mention of the said notification is in the judgment and in view of the said notification the judgment was so delivered in favour of these two officers. The complainant has alleged that after inquiry from his colleagues in N.‑W. F. P. Government, it was found that the document so produced before this Tribunal, was a forged one The alleged forgery according to the complainant, pertains to the date which has been altered from 19th July, 1972 to 19th July, 1971. In this way the complainant has prayed that as deliberate fraud has been perpetuated upon this Tribunal and the decision of 15th July, 1981 has been obtained through fraud this Tribunal should file a complaint against the said two officers Messrs Falak Sher and Abdul Salam as well as suo motu review be made of the said judgment. Notice to this effect was issued in the name of the respondents who have appeared before this Tribunal alongwith their learned counsel Mr. Muhammad Aslam Virk.

2. We have heard Mr. Shahid Hamid, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Mr. Muhammad Aslam Virk, learned counsel for the respondents and have perused this case carefully with their assistance.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondents Messrs Falak Sher and Abdul Salam have cleverly removed the said forged notification from the file and have also managed to tamper with the record in their favour, both at the level of S&GAID as well as in the office of the Registrar of this Tribunal. In support of his arguments, he has submitted that in the Memorandum of Appeal, certain pages have been changed, so as to show that no such notification was produced during the hearing of this appeal before this Tribunal which is obvious from the fact that page 2 is larger in size with a different style of typing than the other pages. He has also pointed out that the record of comments also differs, as at one place year 1972 has been mentioned and at other place year 1971 is written. According to the learned counsel the presumption would be that all this has been done at the behest of the respondents, who would be the beneficiaries of the said act, and it was with their connivance that interpolation ‑and tampering, of record, has been committed both in the office of the Registrar/ Reader of this Tribunal, as well as in the Services, General Administration and Information Depart ment. However, he has candidly admitted that he has got no direct evidence to prove the same but by implications as well as by inference, the respondents are guilty of this forgery and fraud.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that no such document was ever produced before this Tribunal at the time of hearing of said case and main reliance was placed on the orders of the Government of the Punjab itself, by which the status of Class I Jr. was conferred by the said Government on their colleagues, who possessed the same qualification and merits. According to the learned counsel the disputed notification was never to be a substantial document, which had influenced the Tribunal to come to a decision in favour of the respondents, but it was only a supporting evidence, if at all, the same is considered to have been produced. However, it has been vehemently denied by the respondents that this document was ever produced by them or they have manipulated its change in the record of this office or in the office of the S & G A D. It has been further submitted that the perusal of the judgment dated 15th July, 1981 would show that the learned Member Sh. Hafizur Rahman, who wrote leading judgment, and which is signed by Malik Zawar Hussain, Member, 11 number of corrections have been made with regard to the various dates in the hands of the learned Member apparently to correct the clerical errors. It has been submitted teat date of the notification of N.‑W. F. P. Government might have been misread and given as 22nd July, 1971 whereas the notification placed by the respondents was of 22nd July, 1972.

5. While arguing his case on this point learned counsel expressed his apprehension that the possibility of this change in the notification of N.‑W. F. P. Government by petitioner himself is not excluded, as he being inimically disposed towards the respondents, might have created this evidence against them to grind his own axe. Learned counsel has also assailed the character of the complainant by submitting that he was convicted for an offence of corruption by the competent Court of Law and the sentence awarded to him according to their knowledge, was still subsisting. According t‑ the learned counsel, a person of this shady character, should not be allowed to malign the respondents, when he himself is a person with doubtful integrity.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments raised by the parties and the issues before us for adjudication are as under

(1) Whether there is a sufficient evidence on the record to connect the respondents with the act of forgery and fraud, in order to lodge a complaint against them by this Tribunal with the Police

(2) Whether the judgment so passed by the Division Bench of this Triburial comprising of Sh. Hafizur Rahman and Malik Zawar Hussain, learned Members, be reviewed suo mote at the instance of the complainant or not

7. With regard to the first issue we do not find that the notification so available on the record is a notification of 1971 and not of 1972 of the N.‑W. F. P. Government. Furthermore there is no direct evidence before us to hold that the first notification has been replaced with the second notification by the respondents except the allegation of the complainant that the second page of Memorandum of Appeal has been changed and year of 1971 has been shown as year 1972. Even for this change, no evidence has been lead to show, who made this change, as the respondents were neither the custodian of the record of this Tribunal nor they had any access to the record of the Services, General Administration and Informa tion Department. If at all, any change has been made, that must have been made by the officials of this Tribunal or the Record Keeper of the Services, General Administration and Information Department, and to conclude this allegation against them, we should have positive proof of the same, before moving the Police. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to section 12 of the C. P. C. and has invoked our powers to ac under the same. We are afraid that we cannot act as a civil Court at this juncture when we have disposed of the said appeal as after such disposal, according to the powers so conferred upon us by section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, the Tribunal ceases to function as a civil Court when the appeal so pending before it is disposed of.

8. With regard to the issue of suo motu review by this Tribunal, it would be sufficient to say that this Tribunal has held in its various earlier judgments that this Tribunal is not empowered to review its own orders, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical mistakes. It would be pertinent to point out at this stage that the complainant himself relying on B the said judgment, which he wants us to review suo mote, has filed aril appeal before us, to treat him at par with the respondents on the strength of the said decision. In this manner, he is both assailing the judgment obtained on the basis or fraudulent act and at the same time he is relying on the same to obtain benefit claiming it as a well‑considered judgment.

9. In view of the above analysis of the entire case we are of the considered opinion that there is no sufficient material before us to warrant initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondents. Similarly we are of the confirmed opinion that no review lies against the judgment of this Tribunal with the Tribunal itself and the only remedy available to the parties is to approach the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which is for all purposes an Appellate Forum of this Tribunal.

10. The result is we dismiss the complaint as being without any merits. However, parties will bear their own costs. To be communicated to the parties.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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