1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought from judgment dated 14‑12‑1976 of Punjab Service Tribunal, whereby the Government's appeal seeking reversal of a decree of a civil Court, directing re‑instatement of the petitioner into service and granting him other reliefs, was allowed. The petitioner while serving as Patwari in the Revenue Department of the Government of Punjab was served with charges of misconduct, which read as follows :‑‑ (1) That while preparing the quadrennial Jamabandi 1960‑61 village. Allah Jiwaya Lar, be deleted the names of Tola Ram etc. non‑Muslim evacuee morgagees and entered one Aaqil Muhammad son of Juma, Caste Jat Dewal, who had got the status of Harim Bakhsh, the absentee landlord and mortgage of 14th share, on self owner as Khud Qabis under some ulterior motives because Mutation No. 665 for the redemption of mortgaged lend was still under section at that time. (2) That in view of Charge No. 1 above he appears to be a dishonest official and has shown dereliction of duty. The charges were enquired into by a Tehsildar who submitted report against the petitioner as also some other persons. The petitioner was held guilty of the charges. The Collector after serving him with due notice and receiving reply from the petitioner, wherein he had pleaded innocence, as also after affording him a personal hearing, passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner on 17‑12‑1968. On appeal, however, the Commissioner, vide his order dated 28‑5‑1969, it is stated, converted the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement. The petitioner, instead of pursuing the matter any more in his departmental hierarchy and seeking redress from the Govern ment, filed a civil suit challenging the departmental order. The learned Administrative Civil Judge, Rehimyarkhan, decreed the suit and declared the orders illegal and void, The Government filed an appeal before the District Judge, which was pending when the Punjab Administrative Tribunal Act, 1974 brought into force. The learned District Judge held that the appeal of the Government on account of the enactment of the new law had abated. Accordingly, the Government filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal under section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974. The same was allowed and consequently the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner. He has set aside. He has, therefore, sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel has contended that the departmental order of dismissal of the petitioner was passed on 17‑12‑1968 while his departmental appeal was decided on 28‑6‑1969. These two orders admittedly having been passed before 1‑7‑1969; he submitted, sub‑clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act barred an appeal before the Tribunal. No doubt it is provided in section 4(1) (c) of the Act that no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal against an order or decision of departmental authority made at any time before the 1st of July, 1969, but the said provision was enacted in 1975 through the Punjab Administrative Tribunals (Amendment Act (XXVI of 1975) when the Government had already filed an appeal under the unamended law‑the proviso to section 8 of the Act conferred a right on either party to the appeal pending before the District Judge at the time of abatement, to file a direct appeal before the Tribunal. Learned counsel did not even argue that the amendment made in 1975 had the effect of taking away the right of appeal under the proviso to section 5 by retrospective operation. It is not necessary for us in this case to make any further comment on the point raised by the learned counsel because on consideration of merits, even otherwise we have come to the conclusion that it is not a fit case for interference by this Court through special leave to appeal. The petitioner had not denied the factum that he had made an entry which was the basis of the charges framed against him. His only explanation was that it was on account of what he described as genuine slip of pen on his part. His explanation not having been accepted by the departmental authorities, nor by the Tribunal no justification has been made out for this Court to interferes in this behalf. Moreover the ground on which the learned civil Court had declared the impugned order as void and ineffective on perusal of the record and material placed before the Service Tribunal was found to be not available to the petitioner. His case was that he had not been duly informed was aware of the proceedings against him and further that he had signed a notice in token of his having been informed about the inquiry. In view of the above circumstances we do not consider it a fit case for leave to appeal. This petition accordingly is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.