1991 PLP 1765 (SCMR)
WAPDA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHALID — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1765 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | WAPDA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHALID — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1765 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1765 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1765 (SCMR) (WAPDA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHALID — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asif Hussain Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th February, 1990.
- Asif Hussain Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 21-6-1989 in Appeal No. 140(L) of 1985).
Art. 212(3)
Service Tribunal, setting aside removal of civil servant and ordering lesser punishment
Petitioner's contention was that Service Tribunal legally erred in condoning delay in the filing of appeal, even though civil servant had not made any application for condonation of delay
Petitioner further contended that Service Tribunal's finding on factual aspect was based on misreading of evidence
Petitioner could not point out misreading of evidence by the Service Tribunal
Service Tribunal, in absence of evidence to the contrary, was not in error in accepting version of civil servant that he had received communication of dismissal order on specified date and had thus preferred his appeal within statutory period of thirty days
Regarding question that no application for condonation of delay had been filed by civil servant such matter being one of discretion, finding of Service Tribun2I could not be set aside on technicality alone
No ground for granting leave having been made out, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑This is a petition by WAPDA, Lahore seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 21‑6‑1989 accepting the appeal of Muhammad Khalid, respondent, and setting aside his removal and ordering lesser punishment.
2. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the Tribunal legally erred in condoning the delay in the filing of the appeal even, though the respondent had not made any application for condonation of delay. It is further contended that the order of Departmental Authority dated 29‑4‑1985 dismissing the respondent's appeal was sent by registered post to the respondent, which should have been received in the normal course within a day or so and that the allegation of the respondent that he had received the said order on 7‑5‑1985, which was found to be correct by the Tribunal, was based on a misreading of the evidence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show what evidence was produced by the petitioner before the Tribunal in support of its plea that the decision of the Superintending Engineer dated 29‑4‑1985 was sent to the respondent by registered post and, if so, on what date the communication was delivered to the respondent or returned unserved. The learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the envelope containing the decision was received back unserved, but the same was not produced before the Tribunal. If this be so, the Tribunal was not in error in accepting the version of the respondent that he had received communication of the dismissal order on 7‑5‑1985 and had thus preferred his appeal within the statutory period of 30 days. As regards the question that no application for condonation of delay had been filed by the respondent, the matter being one of discretion, the finding of the Tribunal cannot be set aside on a technicality alone. Taking all circumstances into consideration we do not see any good ground for granting leave. This petition is dismissed. AA./W‑84/S Leave refused.