Find a Lawyer

Case No. 529 of 1985, decided on 5th September, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Limitation‑‑Appellant dismissed for misconduct of wilful absence‑‑Charge established‑‑Departmental appeal delayed for more than 3 years‑‑Appeal before Tribunal, in circumstances, dismissed as grossly time barred as well as on merits.

Mirza Shamshad Ahmad Baig for Appellant.

‑‑Inayat Ali Hashmi, ex‑Restorer, Record Room has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab‑ Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Assistant Secretary (General), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, and the Secretary (Establishment), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that he be declared in service retrospectively and impugned orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be set aside. It has been further prayed that all the past service benefits may also be allowed to the appellant alongwith any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem proper.

3. The appeal is still at the stage of preliminary hearing.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was granted 120 days leave, with effect from 25‑10‑1980 to 21‑2‑1981 inter alia on the grounds that he was to construct the house of his sister‑in‑law at Jhang Shahi, District Thatta of Sind Province. He did not resume his duty on the expiry of the said leave but in his application, dated 23‑2‑1981, requested for further extension of leave upto 23‑6‑1981. He did not mention his postal address on the said application. The leave Application was considered and the leave was refused by the competent authority, and the official in question was informed of this fact vide Urdu Yadasht, dated 9‑4‑1981 and he was also directed to resume his duty at once failing which he was informed that he would be proceeded against. Neither Urdu Yadasht, dated 9‑4‑1981, was received back undelivered nor the appellant resumed his duty. It was a case of misconduct and wilful absence, the appellant was charge‑sheeted on the aforesaid grounds. The charge‑sheet was sent to him on the given addresses of Lahore and Jhang Shah, District Thatta of Sind Province. These charge‑sheets were neither received back undelivered nor any reply of the charge‑sheet was received from the accused official. In view of the above the appellant was proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. Mr. Habib Ullah Qureshi, Superintendent, Board of Revenue was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the truth of the charges against him. The Enquiry Officer in his inquiry report came to the conclusion that the charges of wilful absence and misconduct stand proved against the accused official. The Enquiry. Officer also mentioned that in spite of his serving him summons to appear before him and offer the defence, the appellant did not appear before him. In order to give a further chance to the appellant to explain his position, a show‑cause notice was issued in the Daily Mashriq for three days consecutively on 15, 16 and 17 October, 1981, asking him to explain his conduct within 14 days of the publication of the said notice otherwise he will be removed from service in accordance with the provisions of Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. As there was no response from the appellant the Authority considered the finding of the Enquiry Officer and held the appellant guilty of misconduct for wilful absence from 22‑2‑1981 and removed him from service from the said date, vide order, dated 3‑11‑1981. The appellant filed appeal against the aforesaid removal order before the appellate authority on 21‑3‑1985, which was considered and filed, vide order, dated 11‑8‑1985. Hence this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant who has based his claim on the main plea that as the appellant was not found guilty and was honourably acquitted by the Military Court No. 38, Rawalpindi, vide order, dated 11‑7‑1985, therefore, the appellant was entitled to be re‑instated in service from the date of his removal. Learned counsel for the appellant was confronted with the detailed and well‑considered order, dated 3‑11‑1981, passed by respondent No. 1, by which the appellant was removed from service on the basis of his wilful absence from duty and not on account of his conviction by the Military Court, but he could not advance cogent reasons to rebut the) aforesaid order. Similarly learned counsel for the appellant could not convince us for making appeal to the appellate authority on 21‑3‑1985, when the appellant was removed from service on 3‑11‑1981, and we find no justification to condone the delay of 3 years and 5 months.

6. In the light of the above discussion we find no force in this appeal which is dismissed in limine, as grossly time‑barred as well ass without any merit.

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.