2013 PLP 881 (SCMR)
NADEEM MASOOD SIDDIQUI — Petitioner Versus QESCO/WAPDA through Director-General and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 881 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | NADEEM MASOOD SIDDIQUI — Petitioner Versus QESCO/WAPDA through Director-General and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 881 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 881 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 881 (SCMR) (NADEEM MASOOD SIDDIQUI — Petitioner Versus QESCO/WAPDA through Director-General and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Anwar Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th July, 2011.
- 3. Mr. Anwar Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondents Nos.1 to 4, when confronted with the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 10-9-2004, candidly conceded that point of limitation was no more alive before the Tribunal for adjudication as it had already been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner. He also could not controvert the other submissions of the petitioner as to the lack of valid reasoning and application of mind by the Tribunal in adjudicating the appeal before it, preferred by the petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi, dated 16-11-2010, passed in Appeal No.166(K)CS of 2004.)
S. 4(1)
Service Tribunal dismissing appeal as time barred having already decided in one of its earlier orders that appeal was filed within the limitation period
Departmental authority refused to expunge adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of civil servant
Appeal filed against order of Departmental authority was dismissed as being time barred and also devoid of merits
Contention of civil servant was that Service Tribunal had stated in one of its earlier orders in the present appeal that appeal was filed within time and accordingly admitted, therefore, through impugned order Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review its earlier order
Point of limitation was no more alive before the Service Tribunal for adjudication as it had already been decided by the Service Tribunal in favour of the civil servant in one of its earlier orders
Dismissal of civil servant's appeal by Service Tribunal on merits lacked valid reasoning and application of mind
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, impugned judgment of Service Tribunal was set aside and appeal was remanded to the Tribunal for its fresh disposal on merits and in accordance with law. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.
By this civil petition, petitioner Nadeem Masood Siddiqui has sought leave of this Court to impugn the judgment dated 16-11-2010, in Appeal No.166(K)CS/2004, passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi Bench (in short the Tribunal), whereby the said appeal against the order of the departmental authority dated 3-3-2003, refusing to expunge adverse remarks in his ACR for the period ending on 31-12-2002, was dismissed, precisely, for the reason being barred by time and also devoid of merits.
2. The petitioner, while arguing the point of limitation decided by the Tribunal against him in the impugned judgment, placed on record copy of earlier order of the Tribunal dated 10-9-2004 in the same appeal to show that it was clearly held by the Tribunal in the said order that appeal of the petitioner was within time and accordingly admitted, therefore, the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order, had no jurisdiction to review such earlier order. He further contended that in this regard on merits too, findings of the Tribunal are erroneous as the Tribunal had itself noted filing of said appeal on the last day of limitation. He also contended that the order of the Tribunal regarding dismissal of his appeal on merits lacks any valid reasoning or application of mind and thus, not sustainable in law.
3. Mr. Anwar Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondents Nos.1 to 4, when confronted with the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 10-9-2004, candidly conceded that point of limitation was no more alive before the Tribunal for adjudication as it had already been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner. He also could not controvert the other submissions of the petitioner as to the lack of valid reasoning and application of mind by the Tribunal in adjudicating the appeal before it, preferred by the petitioner.
4. This being the position, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed in the terms that the impugned judgment dated 16-11-2010 is set aside and Appeal No.166(K)CS/2004 is remanded to the Tribunal for its fresh disposal on merits and in accordance with law. MWA/N-2/SC Case remanded.