2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.‑‑‑By this common judgment we propose to dispose of these appeals, which are directed against a consolidated judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 31‑5‑1999, passed in Appeals Nos.327(R) and 340(R) of 1999, respectively.

2. The appellants herein were dismissed from service on the charges of commission of irregularities/frauds. Their review petitions before the competent authority, also failed. Their writ petitions before the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, in view of section 2‑A inserted in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, were abated on 26‑3‑1999. Thereafter they filed appeals before the Tribunal, which were dismissed on the point of limitation. Feeling aggrieved, they filed petitions in this Court, wherein leave to appeal was granted to consider "whether the appeals preferred by the petitioners were within time and whether under the circumstances they were entitled to condonation of delay". 2‑A. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and minutely perused the material available on the record. In support of his contentions, Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned counsel for the appellants has relied on Muhammad Yaqub v. Pakistan Petroleum Limited (2000 SCMR 830), Azimullah, Ex‑Inspector v. Chairman, Board of Trustees, Abadoned Properties Organization, Islamabad (2001 P.L.C. (C.S.) 358) and Managing Director, SSGC Ltd. v. Ghulam Abbas (PLD 2002 SC 724, at 734), and National Bank of Pakistan v. Alain Hussain (C.P. No. 1759 of 2002). Learned counsel pointed out that in the said case respondent‑Alam Hussain, Head Cashier of the National Bank or Pakistan, was also charge‑sheeted alongwith the present appellants; the competent authority imposed penalty on Alam Hussain as well as the appellants herein, therefore, the case of the present appellants is identical and at par with that of Alain Hussain. The appeal of Alam Hussain was allowed by the Tribunal and the delay was condoned, against which the bank filed petition before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 30‑10‑2002 (available at pages 3‑5 of paper book bearing No. CMA No. 306 of 2003 in C. A. No.1298/2000).

3. On the other hand, Kh. M. Farooq, learned A. S.C. for respondents, in support of his arguments has cited Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (2004 SCMR 100).

4. Keeping in view the case of N.B.P. v. Alam Hussain, referred to above and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Managing Director, SSGC Ltd., referred to above, wherein it has been C held that "decision of the cases on merits always to be encouraged instead of non‑suiting the litigants for technical reason including on limitation," therefore the delay in the cases in hand is condoned.

5. It would be beneficial to refer here Articles 25 and 187 of the Constitution, which read as under: "

25. Equality of citizens.‑‑‑(1) All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law. (2) There shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex alone. (3) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the protection of women and children. " "

187. Issue and execution of processes of Supreme Court.‑‑‑(1) Subject to clause (2) of Article 175, the Supreme Court shall have power to issue such directions, orders, or decrees as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it, including an order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person or the discovery or production of any document .... . "

6. In the interest of justice, equity, fair play, the case‑law referred to above, facts and circumstances and the provisions of the Constitution, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and remand the matters to the Tribunal for afresh decision on merits without being prejudiced by its earlier judgment whereby the appeals of the appellants were dismissed. S.A.K./M‑62/S Case remanded.