Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑S. 4 (1) read with Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, r. 13‑Appeal before Tribunal lies against final order- Dismissal of departmental appeal against impugned penalty by Appellate authority‑Final order‑Appeal before Tribunal maintainable within 30 days of such final order‑No further revision petition admissible‑Further revision petition, held, could not enlarge limitation.

C. M. Lat if for Appellant.

A. G, Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER)

-----Saleem Akhtar ex‑Chemist Technician, Institute of Blood Transfusion Service, Punjab, Lahore liar made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Health Department, Lahore, the Director Blood Transfusion Service, Punjab, Lahore and Dr. Mazhar Hussain, Institute of Blood Transfusion, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 2nd January, 1983 of respondent No. 3 and order, dated 28th March, 1983 of respondent No. 2 be set aside and the appellant be declared to be continued in service with all back benefits.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was suspended from service and Dr. Muhammad Zafar, Divisional Blood Transfusion Officer, Lahore was directed to proceed against the appellant as Authorised Officer vide order, dated 20th October, 1982 of the authority. The charge-sheet was served by the said Authorised Officer, on 23rd October, 1982 and Mr. Muhammad Afzal, Blood Donor Organizer, Institute of Blood Trans fusion, Punjab, Lahore was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 23rd October, 1982. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report to the Authorised Officer on 16th December, 1982. Excepting that one charge which was held to be partly proved, the Enquiry Officer held all the charges to be proved against the appellant. The Authorised Officer considered the enquiry report and recommended the case to the Authority for major punishment against the appellant. A show‑cause notice was served on the appellant by the Authority under rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The appellant was also provided copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer, dated 16th December, 1982 and a copy of the report of the observations and recommendations made by the Authorised Officer in his letter, dated 20th December, 1982. The appellant was offered an opportunity of personal hearing by the Authority, on 30th December, 1982. After consideration of the defence of the appellant, enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer and recommendations of the Authorised Officer, the appellant was dismissed from service with immediate effect vide order, dated 2nd January, 1983 of respondent No. 3. The appellant made an appeal to the appellate authority i.e. Director, Blood Transfusion Service, Punjab, Lahore which was considered and dismissed vide his order, dated 28th March, 1983. The appellant made a revision petition to the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Health Department, Lahore, dated 12th April, 1,983, which is still undecided. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e. C. M. Latif, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A. G. Humayun, District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents.

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this is a case of malice against the appellate authority i.e., Dr. Sakhia Sakhaullah, Director, Blood Transfusion Service, Punjab, Lahore. She employed the appellant in her private clinic to work after office hours. The dispute had arisen between them regarding increase of emoluments being paid by Dr. Sakhia Sakhaullah for working at her CLINIC. Dr. Sakhia Sakhaullah, Director, Blood Transfusion Punjab, Lahore, had refused to increase the emoluments of the appellant in April, 1982, as requested by the appellant. Dr. Sakhia Sakhaullah became annoyed on this. She adopted a stern attitude towards the appellant. She being the head of the institute managed anal pressurised her subordinates i.e. Authorised Officer, Enquiry Officer and the Authority to proceed against the appellant in such a way so that he could be punished. Thus, the appellant has been punished arbitrarily as a connivance of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as well as the Authorised Officer and the Enquiry Officer. Concluding his arguments it has been vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been punished as a result of malice of respondent No. 2 and has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside. Consequently the appellant be reinstated in service with all back benefits.

6. On the other hand the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant have been stoutly resisted by the learned District Attorney. He has submitted that all the proceedings have been carried out indepen dently, honestly and fairly by the Authorised Officer, Enquiry Officer and the Authority. He has rebutted the contention of the appellant's counsel that the appellant has been punished as a result of malice on the part of the appellate authority, respondent No. 2. In support of this he has referred to the contents of the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, recommendations of the Authorised Officer and impugned order, dated 2nd January, 1983 of the Authority. He has pointed out that by these documents, the charges against the appellant have been duly proved and thus, no exception can be taken against the impugned orders.

7. A strong objection, has also been taken by the learned District Attorney that the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred and without going into the above merits of the case, it is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. It has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that the appeal was rejected by the appellate authority i.e., respondent No. 2, on 28th March, 1983 and the appellant was required to file the appeal to the Tribunal. within 30 days of this date. But, the appellant has filed this appeal, on 13th September, 1983; to this Tribunal. Thus, the appeal is time‑barred by 41/2 months. It has been made in clear by the learned District Attorney that no revision petition lies, according to the rule., against the final order of the appellate Authority, dated 28th March, 1973, but the appellant had submitted a revision petition to the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Health Department against the provision of the rules. Thus, this review petition was uncalled for as this revision was not available to the appellant as time enlarging device. He has also pointed out that the appellant has not filed any application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of this delay as well. Concluding his arguments regarding time limit, the learned District Attorney has submitted that this appeal is hopelessly time-barred and he dismissed on this score alone.

8. The appellant's counsel was asked to justify the reasons for filing of revision petition before the Secretary, Health Department as pointed out by the learned District Attorney, but the appellant's counsel could not satisfy us regarding filing of this review petition to the Secretary, Health Department, as there was no provision under the Rules for filing of this review petition, when the appeal of the appellant had been finally dismissed by the respondent No. 2, vide her order, dated 28th March, 1983.

9. The appellant/appellant's counsel were also asked to produce the documents in support of malice so alleged by them against the respondent No. 2, Dr. Sakhia Sakhaullah, at the time of hearing of this case, but they have failed to produce any such document to prove the alleged malice against the respondent No. 2.

10. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case very carefully. As far as the objection of the learned District Attorney regarding time limit of this appeal is concerned, we agree with the learned District Attorney that the appeal time‑barred by 41 months. The appeal of the appellant was rejected by the appellate authority i.e., the Director Blood Transfusion Service, Punjab, Lahore (respondent No. 2) on 28th March, 1983, as admissible under rule 13 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. There is no further provision of revision petition under these rules. Hence, filing of the revision petition by the appellant to the Secretary Health Department was uncalled for, against the rules and in this way he cannot enlarge the time limit by submission of this revision petition. On rejection of the appeal of the appellant by the appellate authority i.e., respondent No. 2, on 28th March, 1983, this had become the final order for the appellant, within the meaning of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 and the appellant was required to file an appeal to this Tribunal within 30 days of this date i.e., 28th March, 1983. However, the appellant has filed this appeal to this Tribunal on 13th September, 1983, after a delay of about 42 months. The appellant has also not filed any application under section 5 of the limitation Act for condonation of its delay. Thus, the appeal is time‑barred by about 41/2 months.

11. As far as the case on merits is concerned, the case has been argued by the appellant/appellant's counsel on the basis of malice against respon dent No. 2, i.e., Dr. Sakhia Sakhaullah, Director Blood Transfusion, Punjab Lahore; but the appellant/appellant's counsel have failed to produce any document before us in support of their contention. We have consulted the report of the Enquiry Officer, recommendations of the Authorised Officer and the impugned orders of the Authority (respondent No. 3) and find that the charges against the appellant have been established fully and the appellant has been punished correctly in accordance with the rules and no exception can be taken against the impugned orders.

12. The upshot of the above discussion of the case is that the appeal is time‑barred and also fails on merits and is dismissed accordingly.

There are 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.