1998 PLP 945 (SCMR)

AJMAL MIAN, J.

This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 23-5-1995 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Camp at Karachi, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, upon Miscellaneous Petition No.5 of 1995 in disposed of Appeal No.32(K) of 1991, granting further time of two months to the respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner filed aforesaid appeal in the Tribunal against his removal from service. The same was allowed through a judgment dated 22-12-1992 in the following terms:-- "During the arguments, we were informed that the appellant even after the reinstatement did not join duty till to date. In case the appellant fails to join duty, the inquiry proceedings against him will be infructuous and no inquiry could be ordered if he is not in service. The appellant shall not be entitled to get the back benefits in those circumstances. The departmental inquiry proceedings initiated against the appellant shall be completed within three months from the date of communication of this order." It seems that the departmental inquiry proceedings referred' to in the above quoted portion of the - Tribunal's judgment were not concluded within three months. It appears that the petitioner had filed Constitutional Petition No.D-1693 of 1993 and had also obtained an interlocutory order dated 5-9-1993 directing the department not to pass any adverse order against him until further orders of the High Court. The above order was recalled by the High Court on 27-10-1994. After that, the above miscellaneous petition was filed before the Tribunal for extension of time, which was allowed. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.

3. In support of the above petition Mr. Shah Abdur Rashid, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that since there is no provision in the Service Tribunals Act conferring power on the Tribunal to review its own judgment or order, the Tribunal could not have extended the 'above period as it amounted to review of the previous judgment. To reinforce the above submission, he has relied upon the following judgments:-- (i) Muhammad Ali v. Postmaster General 1982 PLC (C.S.) 757; (ii) S.A. Rizvi v. Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and another (1986 SCMR 965 relevant at page 968); and (iii) Ghulam Muhammad v. Director-General, Pakistan' Rangers Headquarters, Lahore (1989 SCMR 288(1).

4. In the above first case, the Service. Tribunal has held that it had no power to review its own judgment. Whereas in the aforesaid two judgments of this Court, it has been held that power of review cannot be claimed by a Court or Tribunal unless it is expressly conferred by law.

5. There cannot be any cavil with the proposition that a Court or Tribunal has no power to review its own judgment unless it is expressly provided for under the relevant provision of the statutes. However, in the present case, the question of review of the above earlier judgment dated 22-12-1992 is not involved. By the above judgment the order of removal was set aside and the petitioner was reinstated in service. This is the operative portion of the order, which has not been reviewed. The Tribunal had fixed three months' period for the completion of inquiry proceedings, which period has been extended due to the difficulties pointed out by respondent No.3 in the above miscellaneous petition. In our view, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to extend the period, which does not amount to review its earlier judgment. If it had power to fix the period of three months for completion of inquiry proceedings, it had also power to extend the period for cogent reasons. The petitioner has not filed a copy of the writ petition to indicate. whether he had filed the same within three months period allowed by the Tribunal through the above judgment. However, Mr. Shah Abdur Rashid has submitted that factually the aforesaid writ petition was filed after the expiry of three months. Be that as it may, the fact remains that by filing of the aforementioned writ petition, he obtained an interlocutory order on 5-9-1993 restraining the department from passing any adverse order against him, which order was recalled by the High Court on 27-10-1994. In view of the above factual background, the Tribunal could have extended the period for completion of the inquiry proceedings. The petition has no merits. Leave is refused. A.A. /T-113/S Leave refused.