P L D 2003 Supreme Court 913 (PLP)

MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.

The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 14-5-2001, whereby his Appeal No.692-L/99 was dismissed being hopelessly time-barred as well as, on merits.

2. Resume of the case is that the petitioner joined Pakistan Rangers on 28-7-1994 as Sub-Inspector on probation. According to, the petitioner, he was confirmed alongwith 18 other officials on 8-6-1998 whereas according to the respondents the Competent Authority cancelled the confirmation order of the petitioner vide letter No.CRO/HQs/478/98, dated 8-6-1998 and thereafter dispensed with his services with effect from 8-6-1998 vide order dated 18-6-1998 as his performance was not found satisfactory during probationary period. The petitioner filed a departmental representation/appeal against the said order before respondent No. 1 on 3-7-1998 which was rejected vide letter dated 18-8-1998. The petitioner then filed second appeal before respondent No.2 on 1-3-1999, which was not responded within 90 days, as such, on 1-6-1999, he filed Appeal No.692-L/99 before the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment as stated above in para. 1.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record with his assistance. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 18-6-1998 against which he filed departmental representation/appeal before respondent No. 1, who rejected the same which was communicated to him vide letter dated 18-8-1998. After dismissal of his departmental representation/appeal, the petitioner instead of approaching the Tribunal filed second appeal before respondent No.2 on 1-3-1999 i.e. after more than six months, which as not responded. Thereafter he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, Camp at Lahore on 1-6-1999 alongwith an application for condonation of delay, which was dismissed by the Tribunal being hopelessly time-barred as well as on merits. Proviso to section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 provides that where the remedy of an appeal, review or representation to a Departmental Authority is provided, no appeal would lie to the Tribunal unless aggrieved civil servant has preferred an appeal, review or representation to Departmental Authority which if is not decided and communicated within 90 days, an appeal would lie before the Tribunal within 30 days and if departmental appeal, review or representation is decided within 90 days and decision thereof is communicated, the appeal to the Tribunal would lie within 30 days from the date of the communication of decision of departmental appeal. In the aforesaid section words an appeal, review, or representation' have been used twice, the meaning of word 'an' as given in Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition is 'equivalent to one or any' 'seldom used to denote plurality', as such, according to law only one appeal, review or representation before the competent Departmental Authority was maintainable which remedy was availed by the petitioner and decision of rejection thereof was communicated to him on 18-8-1998 i.e. within 90 days, which should have been challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal within 30 days but he did nothing for more than six months and thereafter filed an incompetent departmental appeal before respondent No.2, who was not competent Appellate Authority, therefore, such incompetent appeal to the higher Authority would neither create fresh cause of action nor would extend the period of limitation, as such, the Tribunal was justified to hold the appeal of the petitioner to be barred by time.

4. Even on merits the petitioner has no case, as the Competent Authority on finding the performance of the probationer unsatisfactory during probationary period, could dispense with his services without issuing any show-cause notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to raise any question of law of public importance warranting interference with the impugned judgment by this Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

5. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. Leave refused. M.B.A./I-78/S Petition dismissed.