Find a Lawyer

Cases Nos. 217/1289 to 221/1293 of 1980, decided on 11th October, 1982.

‑‑ Limitation‑Adverse remarks in A. C. R. sought to be expun ged ‑ No justification given for delay of 4 years‑Appeal not entertained by Tribunal holding that delay in such matter is to be explained and justified for every day before indulgence of Court is sought by a litigant.

Awan Muhammad Hanif Khan for Appellant.

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

S. ABDUL JABBARKHAN (CHAIRMAN).

‑Syed Nisar Ali Shah has filed five. appeals before us bearing No. 217/1989 of 1980, 218/1290 of 1980, 219/1291 of 1980, 220/1292 of 1980 and 221/1293 of 1980 on 29th April, 1980, pertaining to the adverse entries given to him by his Reporting Officers during the years 1972, 1971, 1973, 1974 and 1970, respectively. n all these appeals be has impleaded all the Reporting Officers as 'well as Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range and Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, who finally rejected his representations, as respondents.

2. By virtue of these appeals he has prayed that the adverse entries so recorded in his A. C. Rs. be expunged as unjustified as well as based on malice.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while serving as Sub- Inspector in districts of Faisalabad and Jhang, received adverse entries for the year 1972 conveyed to him on 10th September, 1973, as under :‑

"A fully but well of groomed officer who as S. H. O. Shorkot earned a bad name for haring been involved in a case under section 376, P. P. C.

During his posting as Addl. SNC P. H. Sadar he did not handle investigation of cases promptly and prepared case diaries after considerable delay. I, therefore, charge‑sheeted him for gross misconduct/ inefficiency and he is facing departmental enquiry.

In Appeal No. 218 of 1980, he received adverse entries from S. P., Jhang for the year 1971, which was conveyed to him on 25th August, 1972, and the same is as under :‑

"Unfortunately he got involved with a subordinate's wife at P. S. Shorkot where he was suspended but was eventually reinstated and transferred to East Pakistan."

In Appeal No. 419/1291 of 1980, S. P., Jhang reported against him for the year 1973, which was as under :‑

"Is he honest "Dishonest."

"He does not enjoy a good moral reputation as well as of honesty."

In Appeal No. 420, S. P., Jhang under whom the appellant was working at that time in the year 1974 reported him as under and the remarks were conveyed to him on 30th April 1975.

"Requires close supervision."

In Appeal No. 221 S. P., Jhang observed about the appellant in the following terms during his tenure at Mochiwala for the year 1970 and these remarks were conveyed to him on. 17th February, 1972 :‑

Is slow to move and completely lacks Police Station experience.

while posted as S. H. O. Mochiwala for a shortwhile he proved a failure. A weak officer who was scoffed at by the criminals. He was, therefore, transferred to Lines."

The appellant filed representations against all these entries fin 15th March 1972 and 12th October, 1976 to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range and the same were rejected in the same year and the order was noted down by the appellant. Hence these appeals.

4. As these appeals relate to adverse entries and were conveyed by the D. I.‑G. Police of same range, involving identical points of law raised by the learned District Attorney in this case viz. limitation, we will therefore, dispose of all these appeals by this single judgment.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

6. Lengthy arguments were advanced on merits by the learned counsel for the appellant in which it was urged that the conduct of the appellant was above board and the Reporting Officers have failed to justify their action/opinion vis‑a‑vis their remarks about the conduct, performance and integrity in each case.

7. Without going into the merits of the case, we will first of all advert to the point of limitation raised by learned District Attorney. It has been submitted on his behalf that the appellant noted down the order of the D. I.‑G. Sargodha Range in the year 1976 when all his represen tations stood rejected therefore, it was incumbent upon him to file an appeal before this Tribunal within 30 days of the said communication. According to the learned District Attorney the delay of 4 years cannot be condoned particularly in view of the fact that no application of any sort under section 5 of the. Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant in all these cases. With regard to the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant had moved a fresh representation in the year 1980, therefore, the time limit would start running after the said application was rejected. Learned District Attorney has argued that under the law there is no provision to make fresh representation against a time‑barred claim in order to revive the limitation at one's own choice.

8. We have given over anxious thought to the points raised before us on this legal issue and are of the considered opinion that the appellant was under legal obligation to file appeal (s) before this forum after 30 days of the said communication which was made to him in the year 1976. We have also verified from the record of his case that the appellant has himself noted down the order on which his representation was rejected in the year 1976. The law on this point is fully settled by the superior Courts of this country as well as by this Tribunal that delay in such matters is to be explained and justified for every day before the indulgence of the Court is sought on this point by a limitation.

9. We are fully satisfied that the cases of the appellant are hopelessly time‑barred as the period of delay is more than 4 years and no justification has been given before us to write off this period and to entertain these appeals on the point of merits.

10. In view of the above we do not find any force in all these appeals which are dismissed as barred by time. There will be no order as to 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.