1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

AJMAL MIAN, C.J.

This is an appeal by the leave of this Court against the judgment dated 23-2-i981 passed by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No. 114/1249 of 1981 filed by the appellant against the order dated 14-11-1981 terminating his service passed by the District Education Officer, Sahiwal, dismissing the same. The brief facts of the case are that till 1979 the appellant had put in about 15 years service as J.V. Teacher, when he was last posted at his native place Haveli Lakha, wherefrom he was transferred to Mauza Wasu Salam Ka, Tehsil Depalpur. It seems that the appellant did not report for duty at the above new place of posting, instead he filed a civil suit and got a stay order from the Civil Court. Later on the appellant moved application for contempt proceedings against the respondent department on the ground of alleged violation of stay order. Then he filed a fresh suit for recovery of salary which was withheld since October, 1979. It appears that a regular inquiry was initiated against the appellant as a result of which the above termination order was passed on the ground that the appellant remained absent from duty with effect from 19-6-1079. It seems that the appellant instead of filing a departmental appeal straightaway filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 23-2-1981. However, during the pendency of the above Appeal on 2-5-1981 the appellant submitted his appeal to the department. The learned Tribunal on the basis of judgment of this Court in the case of Kadir Bux v. Province of Sindh (1982 SCMR 582) dismissed the appeal. After that the appellant approached this Court through Civil Appeal No. 505 of 1988 with the leave of this Court, which was allowed for the following reason: "That is so yet departmental appeal was being processed and had not finally been disposed of in 90 days period when the appeal before the Tribunal came up for hearing and need not have been dismissed on the ground that the appellant had not filed an appeal before the departmental authority. Facts noted in the leave granting order quoted above show that the learned Tribunal should re-examine the whole matter afresh after calling for the record and hearing the parties. In view of the above the appeal is allowed, the impugned orders set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Punjab Service Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. The appellant is directed to appear before the learned Punjab Service Tribunal on 3-8-1991 for further order by the Tribunal." After the above remand order the matter was reheard by the Tribunal. The Chairman of the Tribunal by his opinion ordered that the appellant's appeal be allowed and the appellant be reinstated. However, it seems that two Members of the Tribunal were of the opinion that the appellant's appeal was not competent for the reason that the appellant approached the Tribunal without first filing the departmental appeal which is an admitted position. The departmental appeal was filed on 2-5-1981. whereas the above appeal was filed on 23-2-1981. In this view of the matter, the view which found favour with the majority of the: Tribunal seems to be correct. It may be observed that this Court while remanding the case to the Tribunal by its judgment dated 3-7-1991 did not hold that the appellant's above departmental appeal filed after about two months and 20 days from the date of filing of the above appeal was competent. The case was remanded for re-examination of the whole matter, as is evident from the above-quoted extract from the above judgment. The impugned majority view does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. However, Mr. Hassan Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant's above departmental appeal has not yet been decided by the department. We, therefore, direct that the department should decide the above appeal within two months of the receipt of this judgment, if it has not already been decided. With the above observation the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./N-25/S Appeal dismissed.