Find a Lawyer

Case No. 454/1279 of 1981, decided on 7th August, 1982.

‑‑ S. 4 ‑ Limitation ‑ Adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Report for 1975‑‑First representation against such remarks rejected in July, 1979‑‑Two subsequent representations also failed‑While dismissing appeal as barred by time, held, agitating through useless representations which were not permissible under rules could not extend period of ',Imitation‑Such practice disapproved by Tribunal.

Ghulam Rasul Chaudhry for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

-------Abdul Aziz, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the adverse remarks given to him in the A. C. R. for the year 1975, by respondent No. 3. He has impleaded I. G. Police, the D. I. G. Police, Lahore Range, Lahore and S. P. City Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks so given to him by S. P. City Division Lahore, be expunged and the impugned orders, dated 16th August, 1981 be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the adverse remarks were recorded by S. P. City Division Lahore, Mr. Muhammad Sharif Cheema for the period from 11th September, 1975 to 31st December, 1975, in the A. C. R. of the appellant which are reproduced below :‑----

"On the written report of City Inspector, dated 2nd December, 1975 A. S. I. Abdul Aziz the then Duty Officer P. S. Yakki Gate was awarded censure for his non‑compliance of his orders for not record ing the absence of S. I. Shafqat Ali S. H. O. P. S. Yakki Gate although he was directed to do so. His conduct was also question able. I, therefore, transferred him to Police Lines."

The appellant filed a revision against the orders before D. I.‑G. Police Lahore Range Lahore and the same was rejected on 12th July, 1979. Later on he filed second appeal/representation to the D. I. G. of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, and the same also stood rejected. He again preferred another representation to the I.‑G. Police which was also rejected on the basis of Standing Order No. 32. 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 Department at length. Learned District Attorney has come up with a preliminary objection in this case by submitting that the appeal was hopelessly time barred as it has assailed the adverse entries which were given to the appel lant in the year 1975 and his representation was rejected on 12th July, 1979. Without going into the merits of this case we will like to attend this preliminary objection, which is, on the face of it is affirmative.

5. We have perused the record of this case and find that the represen tation of the appellant against this adverse entry stood rejected on 12^th July, 1979. However, the appellant went on agitating through various representations which were neither permissible under the rules nor could extend the period of limitation in the case of the appellant. In view of this established fact on the record, we do not find any reason to condone the delay when there is no application from the side of the appellant for condonation of the same. Even otherwise nobody can be permitted to indulge into useless exercise of filing various representations to extend period of limitation in his favour. This practice, we have discouraged in a number of cases, so decided by this Tribunal.

6. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case we proceed to dismiss the appeal as hopelessly time-barred with 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.