Find a Lawyer

Case No. 311/1858 of 1982, decided on 29^th June, 1983.

‑‑ S. 4‑Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, r. 16‑Original order passed by Government‑Review Appeal‑Maintainability‑Original order of dismissal passed by Government and review petition against such order not filed by civil servant‑Civil servant, held, in first instance to exhaust remedy of review‑Appeal before Tribunal, held further, not competent in such circumstances.

Sh. Abdul Qayyum for Appellant.

A. G. Humayuan, District Attorney for Respondents,

Muhammad Amin Riaz has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department and Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that order passed by respondent No. 1, dated 30th November, 1981 by which he has been dismissed from service be set aside, being illegal, void ab initio and without lawful authority. The appellant has further prayed that he be re‑instated in service by setting aside the impugned order and be awarded all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that in March, 1978 the appellant was appointed as Accountant, Municipal Committee, Chistian. Some complaints of corruption and irregularities in Municipal Committee, Chistian, were received by the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar and Martial Law Authorities, Bahawalnagar, during the year 1978‑79 These complaints were primarily enquired into by an Enquiry Committee appointed by the Deputy Commissioner. Bahawalnagar, in consultation with the Martial Law Authorities. The Enquiry Committee, besides other functionaries of Municipal Committee, Chishtian, also held the appellant responsible for the irregularities committed in that Committee. A criminal case under section 380, P. P. C. was also got registered against the appellant which was ultimately quashed by the Lahore High Court Bench at Bahawalpur. Copy of the judgment is at Annexure C'. The appellant as a result of the enquiry vas found guilty of the charges. He was dismissed from service vide Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department order, dated 30th November, 1981. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. The case has been argued by Sh. Abdul Qayyum, the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant and the learned District Attorney for the respondents.

5. On the outset an important legal objection has been raised by the] learned District Attorney that as per para. 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 the appellant was required to make review petition to the Government before filing an appeal to this Tribunal. As the appellant has not filed a review petition to the Government as per provision of the E & D Rules, the appeal of the appellant is not maintainable as per section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. It was vehemently submitted by the learned District Attorney that the appeal is liable to be dismissed of this score alone.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the important legal objection, put forth by the learned District Attorney and I find that the objection raised by the learned District Attorney is valid one. Rule 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 reads as follows :‑

"Review and not appeal in certain cases.‑Where the original order has been passed by the Government, no appeal shall lie, and instead, review petition shall lie to the Government and the Government may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on the appellate authority :

Provided that it shall not be necessary for the Government to accused an opportunity to be heard in person except where the Government proposes to increase the penalty, in which case he shall, by order in writing, inform the accused of the action proposed to be taken and the grounds of the action and give him a reasonable opportunity to show cause against that action."

It is clear from the above rule that the appellant was required to submit review petition to the Government as the impugned order has been passes by the Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department which the appellant has failed to do so.

7. Keeping the above facts in view, I agree with the learned District Attorney and direct that the appellant should first exhaust the remedy of review petition before the Government as per rule 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 and as per section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The appellant is directed to complete this formality. However, if the appellant is not satisfied with the decision of the Government on consideration of the review petition, he can approach this Tribunal again, if so required.

8. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of in the terms of the order as above.

There will be no order as to cost.

M. Y. M. 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.