1990SCMR1504 (PLP)
Mst. ZAHIDA alias ZUBEDA ZABOOR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES,
| Citation | 1990SCMR1504 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. ZAHIDA alias ZUBEDA ZABOOR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1504 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990SCMR1504 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR1504 (PLP) (Mst. ZAHIDA alias ZUBEDA ZABOOR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Sher Bahadur, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st August, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 19‑10‑1987 passed in Appeal No.739 of 1986). ‑‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Petitioner's appeal against his termination was dismissed by Appellate Authority and his appeal against such dismissal order was dismissed by Service Tribunal being time‑barred‑‑‑Only explanation given for delay in filing appeal was that petitioner was not informed about dismissal order‑‑‑Service Tribunal after examination of evidence on record found that order appealed against was duly communicated to petitioner on address given in memo. of appeal by petitioner/appellant, but despite receiving same, he filed appeal late and thus dismissed appeal being time‑barred‑‑‑No legal infirmity having been found in exercise of discretion by Service Tribunal, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Service Tribunal whereby her service appeal was dismissed as time‑barred.
2. The petitioner, who was found absent from duty did not turn up to answer the charges and her absence was found to be wilful w.e.f. 28‑4‑1985. Her services were terminated vide order, dated 30‑5‑1985. She appealed against this order and her appeal was dismissed on 3‑6‑1986. She filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 2‑9‑1986 which was held to be time barred. The only explanation given by the petitioner for filing the appeal before the Service Tribunal so late was that she was not informed of the appellate's order, dated 3‑6‑1986 and as soon as she got to know of it, she filed the appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal has found her appeal to be time‑barred and found no sufficient reasons for condoning the delay. The factor which weighed with the Tribunal has been expressed in the following words:‑‑ "The appeal is likely to fail on one ground of limitation because the order was communicated to the appellant vide endst: dated 3‑6‑1986 and the same was sent at the address cited by her in the memo. of appeal before the respondent No.2 while. this appeal was filed by her on 2nd September 1986. The appellant has appended an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was alleged that the appellant has not been supplied with authenticated copy, therefore, the appeal is within time. The application is being made to be on the safe side. The appeal was ready on 1st September, 1986 as is clear from the date at the foot of the memo. of the appeal, as well as the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and the affidavit attached with the same, yet the same was filed in the Tribunal on 2nd September, 1986. There is no explanation for this delay. The story of applying for attested copy is, also falsified by the record as the appellant has placed on record only a photo copy."
3. We find that no legal infirmity exists in the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal. No case is made out for leave to appeal which is refused. H.B.T./Z‑77/S Leave refused.