Find a Lawyer

Case No. 863/1146 of 1984, decided on 11th March, 1985.

‑‑S. 4‑Appeal before Tribunal‑Limitation‑Departmental repre sentation not replied‑Appeal to be filed after waiting for 90 days from date of representation and within 30 days after such waiting period‑Departmental representation rejected‑Appeal before Tri bunal to be filed within 30 days from date of communication of rejection order.

Faiz Ahmad Khan Rai for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

Abdul Hakeem has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order, dated 11th October, 1984, in which the Review Petition for the expunction of adverse remarks was rejected. He has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Finance Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad, as res pondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the adverse remarks for the period from 1st June 1979 to 31st December, 1979 and from 1st January, 1980 to 31st December; 1980 be expunged.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was given adverse report for the period 1st June, 1979 to 31st December, 1980, and duly communicated to him vide office order, dated 8th September, 1981, as under :‑

"An average officer who was found lacking in tact; he should learn to extend full co‑operation to the officers of the other departments."

The appellant was also given adverse entries for the period from 1st January, 1980 to 31st December, 1980, which was communicated to him vide letters, dated 1st June, 1981 and 29th November, 1981. He filed representation against the adverse remarks of 1st June, 1979 to 31st December, 1979, but no orders were passed on the said representation. The appellant has filed this appeal without waiting for the reply of the competent authority. The appellant also filed representation against adverse remarks for the period 1st January. 1980 to 31st December, 1980, before the competent authority which was considered and rejected vide letter, dated 11th March, 1982. The appellant filed another appeal; review before the same authority which too was considered and rejected on 12th October, 1984, 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 and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned District Attorney, at the very outset, has raised preliminary objection on the ground that the appeal is liable to be dismissed without going into the merits of the case simply on the ground that the case of the appellant is hit by the verdict of the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered by their Lordships in case of Muhammad Usman. According to the learned District Attorney on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court the appellant was under obligation either to come before this Tribunal after waiting for 90 days of the said decision on his representation which he had already filed before the next higher authority and in case he had failed to do so it would be incumbent upon him to wait for the final order in his case.

6. We have given due consideration to this objection of the learned District Attorney and find that undoubtedly the appellant did file repre sentation, to the next higher authority in 198 1 as soon as the said adverse remarks were communicated to him and the said representation is still undecided. In this manner the appellant has failed to come before this Tribunal after 90 days plus 30 days of filing the representation, therefore, his appeal would not be entertainable unless his representation is finally disposed of by the next higher authority before which. it is still pending.

7. With regard to the second part of the relief regarding adverse report for 1st January, 1980 to 31st December, 1980, the appellant had filed representation before the authority which was rejected on 11th March, 1982 and it was incumbent upon him that after getting the fate of his said representation he should have agitated the matter before this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of the said order, but we find that he did not file appeal within the prescribed time limit, therefore, the same would be time‑barred.

8. In view of the above the appeal is dismissed on the point of laches, there will be no order as to costs.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.