2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD JAVED ASHRAF HUSSAIN (MEMBER).

Advocate for the appellant present. None present from respondents' side.

2. The appellant was compulsorily retired from service vide impugned order, dated 31-5-2001. The advocate for the appellant states that the appellant filed departmental appeal, dated 10-6-2001, a copy of which has been filed with the appeal. He further states that having received no reply, the appellant issued reminders addressed to the Inspector-General Police, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vide his letters, dated 15-3-2003, 17-7-2004 and 25-5-2005, copies of which have also been filed, with the appeal.

3. Vide A.I.G. (Admn.) letter, dated August, 2005 on behalf of Inspector-General Police, Pakistan Railways, the appellant was directed to appear before the D.I.-G./PRP, Lahore on 30-8-2005 at 0800 hours in connection with his appeal. On the same date i.e. 30-8-2005, the department issued a letter addressed to the appellant stating therein that as the appellant had not explained the delayed filing of departmental appeal, the appeal "is rejected being grossly time-barred". The department therefore, admits that a departmental appeal was preferred by the appellant, but while rejecting the appeal on the point of its being time-barred have failed to specify in their rejection letter the date of the departmental appeal. Therefore, there seems to be a dispute with regard to departmental appeal having been submitted within the statutory period of 30 days. The learned counsel for the appellant asserted that appellant had duly submitted his departmental appeal on 10-6-2001 i.e. within 30 days of the impugned order, dated 31-5-2001. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the appellant was within his rights to wait the final rejection order of his departmental appeal and relied on 2006 PSC 1651. On the basis of this authority the appeal is liable to be admitted having been filed on 3-10-2005 after the rejection order, dated 30-8-2005, but as stated by the appellant received by him on 3-9-2005, thus, within 30 days of the rejection of the departmental appeal by the department. Nonetheless the issue of submission of departmental appeal within time seems to be disputed by the department as it appears in their rejection letter, dated 30-8-2005.

4. We would like to keep the matter of limitation open till finalization of judgment in the case. As the appeal concerns imposition of major penalty of compulsory retirement from service on the basis of past punishments, bad service record and not enjoying good reputation the latter two charges being rather vague, the matter needs consideration. The appeal is, therefore, admitted subject to all just and legal exceptions including limitation. Security. Adjourned to 15-5-2008.

5. Parties be informed accordingly. H.B.T./18/FST???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.