1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

AJMAL MIAN, J.--By this common order we intend to dispose of the above six petitions which are filed by the three petitioners. Civil Petitions Nos.318 to 320 of 1995 have been directed against the judgment dated 20-12-1994 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 947 of 1994, 949 of 1994 and 959 of 1994, filed by the petitioners against the respondent's orders of their dismissal from service on the ground of misconduct, which were dismissed in limine. Whereas Civil Petitions Nos. 313 to 315 of 1995 have been filed against a common order dated 6-4-1995 passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Review Petitions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 1995 filed in the above disposed of writ petitions by the petitioners for reviewing of the above dismissal order dated 20-12-1994 on the ground that they discovered Circular No. PD (E & D)/3/90/331, dated 20-8-1990 issued by the Director (E & D) of respondent No. 1 under Sub -Regulations (2) and (3) of Regulation 2 and Sub-Regulation (a)(ii) of Regulation 11 of A.D.B.P. Officers Service (E & D) Regulations, 1975, defining Authorised Officer, Authority and Appellate Authority, after the judgment passed in the above writ petitions which shows that the dismissal order was not passed by the competent Authority and on which ground Writ Petition No. 327 of 1994 filed by Muhammad Javed lqbal (who was holding a post equivalent to the present petitioners), was allowed by another learned Single Judge of the same High Court on 22-1-1995, dismissing the same: The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal.

2. The above first three petitions, which are directed against the order dated 20-12-1994, are barred by time by 122 days. In the application for condonation of delay, the ground mentioned is that the petitioners were prosecuting their aforesaid review petitions. Whereas the remaining three petitions are within limitation period.

3. In support of the above petitions Mr. Gul Zarin Kiani, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the discovery of above Circular dated 20-8-1990 after the dismissal of aforementioned writ petitions by order dated 20-12-1994 was a sufficient ground for review and that the learned Judge in Chambers was not justified in refusing the same. His further submission was that even on merits, the original order dated 20-12-1994 dismissing the petitioners aforesaid writ petitions was not warranted by law as there was contravention of the relevant rules in conducting the enquiry.

4. We are inclined to grant leave to consider the following questions:-- (i) Whether the learned Judge in Chambers was justified in refusing to review the above order dated 20-12-1994 passed in the writ petitions? and (ii) Whether the above order dated 20-12-1994 of the learned Judge in Chambers dismissing the petitioners' writ petitions in limine is in accordance with law? Leave is, accordingly, granted subject to the question of limitation to be decided at the time of hearing of the appeals arising out of the above first three petitions after service of the notice to the other side.