Find a Lawyer

Case No. 247 of 1982, decided on 12th July, 1982.

‑‑‑S.4‑‑Appeal before Tribunal‑‑Filed more than 5 months after impugned order‑‑No cogent reasons in support of application for condonation of delay ‑‑Condonation refused.

‑‑‑Rr. 6, 7 & 8‑‑Accused served with charge‑sheet‑‑Reply to charge -sheet not satisfactory‑‑Accused facing criminal trial as well on same charges but acquitted not on merits but on account of failure of witnesses to support prosecution version‑‑Service Tribunal, in circumstances, refusing to interfere with well‑considered penalty of dismissal from service.

Malik Ghulam Qadir for Appellant.

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

Mr. Ahmad Hassan, Ex‑Chowkidar, Excise and Taxation Office, Multan has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order, dated 13‑8‑1981 passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Multan as well as against an order, dated 12‑12‑1981 passed by the Director, Excise and Taxation Office, Multan by which he was dismissed from service.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that he may be re‑instated in service and the impugned orders be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that while working as Chowkidar in the Office of Excise and Taxation Officer, Multan the appellant was hauld up by the Local Police on 3‑6‑1981 under section 3/4 of Islamic Laws and 13‑XX‑1965 Arms Act. He was prosecuted by the Police and ultimately acquitted on 27‑2‑1983 by Magistrate Ist Class, Multan. As this Chowkidar was on probation period and has not completed the same as required under the Civil Servants Rules, the Excise and Taxation Officer, Multan vide his order, dated 21‑4‑1982 despite the judgment the learned Magistrate removed the appellant from service. Appellant filed an appeal against the said Order before the Director, Excise and Taxation, Multan who vide his order, dated 23‑12‑1981 dismissed the same. Hence this appeal.

4. The appeal is still on the stage of preliminary hearing and on the face of it, it is time‑barred. The final order was passed on 12‑12‑1981 while the appeal has been filed on 20‑5‑1982. As the application for condonation of delay does not give any cogent reasons for the same, therefore, I do not feel persuaded to condone the delay.

5. With regard to the merit of the case the appellant was duly charge‑sheeted and reply to the charge‑sheet was considered unsatis factory. The judgment of the learned Magistrate has not been at all on merits but only on account of the witnesses who did not support the prosecution version at all.

6. In view of the above I am not inclined to interfere with the two well‑considered orders and find no reason also to condone the delay for which no explanation has been rendered.

7. Result is I dismiss the appeal in limine.

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.