Find a Lawyer

Case No. 68/1939 of 1980, decided on 10th May, 1983.

‑‑‑ S. 4 read with Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, rr. 13 & 15‑Appeal before Tribunal‑Limitation -Representation against penalty order rejected by appellate authority- No further review petition to higher authorities permissible under rules‑Time spent in such unnecessary representations to Government, held, would not extend limitation period for appeal.

Masud Ahmed Riaz for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

Karamat Hussain formerly Sub‑Engineer (Mechanical) Highways Circle, Bahawalpur has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded Superintending Engineer, Highways Circle, Bahawalpur, Chief Engineer, Punjab Highways Department, Lahore and Government of Punjab through the Secretary to Government of the Punjab Communica tion and Works Department, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 1st December, 1976 (Annexure B'), 4th March, 1978 (Annexure D') and dated 2nd January, 1980 (3rd February, 1980) (Annexure F') be set aside, being void ab initio, without jurisdiction and contrary to the rules.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Sub -Engineer was charge‑sheeted by respondent No. 1 in which 8 charges of irregularities pertaining to the accounts were levelled against him. The appellant submitted detailed reply to explain, his position. As respondent No. 3 was not satisfied with the appellant's explanation, he ordered an enquiry. Mr. Khalid Latif Khawaja, Executive Engineer was appointed an Enquiry Officer and submitted the enquiry report to the Government. The enquiry report was passed on to respondent No. 1 who under the orders of the Government issued show‑cause notice to the appellant, Consequently, respondent No. l held the appellant guilty of misappropria tion of Government material of value of Rs. 14,947.60 thus causing a loss to the Government. Accordingly, appellant was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service w. e. f. 18th February, 1974 as well as recovery of the aforesaid amount, vide order dated 1st December, 1976 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Highways Circle, Bahawalpur. The appellant made a representation to the Chief Engineer, Punjab Highway Department, Lahore which was rejected, vide order, dated 4th March, 1978. The appellant filed a review petition before the respondent No. 3 and also the Advisor, Communication and Works Department which was rejected, vide Government of the Punjab, C & W Department, Lahore, vide order, dated 2nd January, 1980 conveyed to the appellant by the Executive Engineer, Mechanical and Maintenance Division, Bahawalpur vide his endst., dated 3rd February, 1980. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. On the outset a legal objection was raised by the learned District Attorney that the appeal is hopeleasly time barred and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. It was pointed out by the learned District Attorney that under the Punjab Government Ser vants Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 no second representation against the punishing authority lies in this case. Representation of the appellant was rejected by the appellate authority, vide order, dated 4th March, 1978, hence, the appellant should have filed his appeal to this Tribunal within thirty days of 4th March, 1978. But, the appellant remained making representations to the higher authorities unnecessarily and there exists no rule regarding these reviews by the next higher authorities against the decision of the appellate authority. As the appellant has filed this appeal to the Tribunal on 8th February, 1980 hence the appeal is time barred for about two years. Concluding his arguments the learned District Attorney submitted that as the appeal is not within time, hence be dismissed right away.

5. Controverting the above arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant could make a review petition to the Government which was the ultimate deciding authority in such matters and thus, the appeal is within time as appellant has filed this appeal on 8th February, 1980 after rejection of his appeal by the Government as conveyed to him by Executive Engineer, Mechanical and Maintenance Division, Bahawalpur on 3rd February, 1980.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of parties and have also perused the rules on the subject. We are in agreement with the learned District Attorney that under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, no review/representation lies in the case of the officer. On rejection of the representation of the appellant by the appellate authority, vide his order dated 4th March, 1978 he should have filed an appeal to this Tribunal within 30 days of this date. But the appellant remained agitating the issue, unnecessarily with the higher authorities i.e. with the Government of Punjab, Secretary Com munication and Works Department and Advisor, C & W Department, which was against the provisions of the Rules. Thus, the appellant cannot enhance the scope of his representation beyond 14th March, 1978 when his appeal was rejected by the appellate authority, On the basis of above observations and facts, we hold that appeal was filed late by nearly two years, and is hopelessly time‑barred. It is also pointed out that no application under the Limitation Act has been filed for pursuading us to condone this delay.

7. Keeping the above analysis in view, we hold that the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred and is dismissed accordingly.

There will be no order as to costs.

A.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.