Find a Lawyer

Case No. 247/514 of 1983, decided on 7th April, 1984.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Appeal barred by time and without proper documentation not maintainable‑‑Held: Tribunal governed by Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ,and has to adopt procedure laid down in this behalf.

Appellant in person.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑‑Shamshir Ali Khan has filed this appeal against his dismissal order, dated 1‑1‑1980, and has claimed a number of benefits and emoluments in his appeal before this Tribunal, as well as prayed that he may be declared to be in service. He has impleaded the Director, Education Multan Division, Assistant Education Officer, Multan, Assistant Education Officer, Kabirwala and Sh. Shakoor Ali, Headmaster, as respondents.

2. I have heard the appellant in person as well as seen the written comments filed by the Department and find that the appellant was dismissed from service, when after the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charge of misconduct. Despite best efforts of the Enquiry Officer the appellant failed to appear before him but contended by submitting applications to the Clerk of the Enquiry Officer that the said Officer was not competent to take any action against him.

3. I have also found that the service book and all other relevant record and School registers are still with the appellant, who considers himself to be still in service and claimed that he is holding class daily in the School although he is not being paid for the said job. It is also on the record that he has to pay Rs.1,220 which was a Government money in his possession and has failed to account for the same. The Department has also submitted that he owes Rs. 879.24, which was Red Cross fund in his possession but has failed to return the same, and sending various applications to various Departments including the President of Pakistan/Chief Martial Law Administrator with whimsical claim.

6. I have taken pains to go into his lengthy appeal and find that it is neither coherrent nor based on any documentary material and even the same is without the impugned order on the record. The appeal was filed by him on 1‑6‑1983; i.e. after 31/2 years without giving any reasons about such inordinate delay and without appending any such impugned order which he wants to challenge. To my considered mind the appellant is aggrieved by certain events and claimed in the memo of his appeal that he has been victim of conspiracy of unearthing the irregularities and embezzlement occurring from time to time in the respondents department.

7. This Tribunal which has been constituted under Article 212 and is governed by the C.P.C. and has to take notice of all the legal flaws and to adopt the procedure so laid down in this behalf. It will be useless to go into the detail of the appeal, which is neither here nor there and is hopelessly time‑barred.

8. The result is, appeal is dismissed as time‑.barred as well as without any proper documentation. There will be 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.