Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 818 of 1985, decided on 14th December, 1985.

(Against the judgment, dated 3‑7‑1984 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No. 138(R)/84).

‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), 8.4(1)‑‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S.17(1‑A)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain appeal against order passed under S. 17(1‑A) of Act (XXXI of 1958).

‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S.17(1‑A)‑‑Removal from service‑‑Arbitrary and unjustified‑‑Finding of fact by Service Tribunal not open to interference‑‑Service Tribunal considered removal from service to be arbitrary and unjustified on material placed before it after taking in view all relevant factors‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere in its limited jurisdiction under Art.212(3).

1986 S C M R 18 ref.

‑‑‑S. 5‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 85‑‑Appeal before Supreme Court‑‑Limitation‑‑Time‑barred appeal allowed by Service Tribunal‑‑Plea raised before Supreme Court that even though no objection had been taken by appellant before Tribunal on ground of limitation, it was duty of Tribunal to give effect to bar of limitation which appeared ex facie from record before it‑‑Held: If appellant had not raised or controverted it before Service Tribunal in spite of an application under S. 5 of Limitation Act having been filed by respondent appeal before Supreme Court was not a stage where it could be successfully raised‑‑Appeal dismissed.

Muhammad Sadiq Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court with Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 14th December, 1985.

‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether Service Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order passed under section 17(1‑A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act (hereinafter referred to‑as the Act).

The legal question raised in this appeal and in a few others stands disposed of 1986 S C M R 18.

So far as the merits are concerned, the respondent was posted as Executive Engineer, Khanewal Division, when on 21‑9‑1982 he was removed from service under section 17(1‑A) of the Act. On an audit objection, a Committee had been set up to find out and fix the responsibility for certain irregularities committed by officers within the jurisdiction of Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Multan. The Committee recommended action against seven officers. While six others were given warning, the respondent was singled out for action under section 17(1‑A) on the basis of a remark made by the General Manager (Administration) which was held by the Tribunal to be wholly unjustified. The Service Tribunal held that "It could not be said with any degree of. certainty that the Authority's decision to remove the appellant under section 17(1‑A) was taken with a fair and open mind". The Tribunal held that: ‑‑

"Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the action taken against the appellant under section 17(1‑A) was not justified and consequently cannot be upheld."

His re‑instatement in service with all consequential benefits was allowed.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended 'chat the service appeal before the Tribunal filed by the respondent was barred by 81 days and the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay was filed long after the appeal had been filed. Even though no objection had been taken by the appellant before the Service Tribunal on the ground of limitation, it was the duty of the Tribunal to give effect to the bar of limitation which appeared ex facie from the record before it. On merits it was contended that there were specific grounds found established on the record of which mention had been made in the nothings on the file which had been produced before the Service Tribunal. In such a background, the order impugned before the Service Tribunal was unexceptionable and not liable to interference by the Service Tribunal.

The remarks recorded by the General Manager which distinguished the case of the respondent from that of his other six colleagues were found by the Tribunal to be based on no material whatsoever. Besides, according to the Tribunal, the report of the Inquiry Committee clearly indicated that no monetary loss had been caused to the Authority by the act of the respondent. His record of service showed him to be an intelligent, hard‑working and well‑behaved officer. There was also the fact that he had taken action against F.F. Industry which had annoyed or was likely to annoy the Chairman for some personal reasons. It was after taking all these factors in view that the Service Tribunal considered the removal of the respondent to be arbitrary and unjustified on the material placed before it. With such a finding of fact, we would not, like to interfere in the limited jurisdiction possessed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.

As regards the question of limitation, if the appellant had not raised or controverted it before the Service Tribunal in spite of an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, having been filed by the respondent, this is not the stage where it can be successfully raised. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with 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.