SCMR 1998

1998 PLP 1375 (SCMR)

Ch. GHULAM SARWAR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and others‑‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition No. 118 of 1995, decided on 21st June, 1995.
Honorable Judges
Saleem Akhtar, Mamoon Kazi and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1998 PLP 1375 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Saleem Akhtar, Mamoon Kazi and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ
Parties Ch. GHULAM SARWAR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and others‑‑‑Respondents
Primary Law Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1375 (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 1998 PLP 1375 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar, Mamoon Kazi and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1375 (SCMR) (Ch. GHULAM SARWAR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 21st June, 1995.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 26‑1‑1995 passed in Appeal No. 29(R) of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Limitation‑‑ Res judicata, principles of‑‑‑Application‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider contentions that after the departmental appeal had been decided, civil servant filed appeal before Service Tribunal within specified time from the receipt of the order; and therefore, same was not barred by time; that an earlier appeal was filed before the disposal of the departmental appeal and, therefore, such appeal will not come in the way of the appeal filed after decision and disposal of the departmental appeal and that the earlier appeal had been dismissed for non‑prosecution and, therefore, the question of res judicata would not arise. ‑‑‑[Res judicata]. Haji Qadir Bux v. Province of Sindh and others 1982 SCMR 582 ref. Petitioner in person.

Judgment & Decree

SALEEM AKHTAR, J.

The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby his appeal was dismissed in limine holding that it was barred by time as well as hit by the principle of res judicata.

2. The petitioner was appointed as trained graduate teacher by order, dated 2nd December, 1969. He was allowed to go on deputation abroad in terms of agreement, dated 2nd August, 1975 for two tours of residential service each of not less than 18 months nor more than 24 months continuous residential service. According to the petitioner, his maximum agreed period of deputation would have expired on completion of four years in August, 1979, Respondent No. 3 issued a show-cause notice, dated 16th April, 1979 stating that the petitioner was on deputation for a period of 3 years with effect from 4-8-1975 to 3-8-1978 but on expiry he had' not reported for duty nor applied for extension of his deputation period which amounted to wilful absence from duty. He was required to report on duty immediately failing which strict disciplinary action would be taken against him. This notice was received by the petitioner on 10-7-1979 through the Embassy of Pakistan with covering letter dated 21-6-1979, According to the petitioner, he replied the notice on 19-7-1979 explaining that the period of deputation had not ended and requested for extension of deputation period up to 5 years. No reply was received by him but instead he received a letter from the Embassy of Pakistan conveying the order of termination. By office order, dated 6th December, 1980, the petitioner's service was terminated with effect from 4-8-1978 for his intentional and unauthorised absence from Government duty. The petitioner addressed a letter dated 12-1-1981 to the Director, Federal Government Education Institution to review the decision. As no response was made by him, the petitioner sent by post memo. of appeal to the Tribunal on 4-2-1981 which was returned on 15-4-1981 as being premature. He resubmitted an appeal on 12-7-1981. It was registered and on 10-1-1982 notice was issued to the petitioner at Nigeria for hearing on 7-2-1982 which according to the petitioner was received by him on 25-3-1982. On 7-2-1982 the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The application for restoration filed on 17-3-1982 was dismissed on 15-4-1986.

3. As petitioner's appeal to the department had not been decided, he tiled a Constitution. petition in the Lahore High Court in which a direction was issued to the Director-General, Federal Directorate of Education, Islamabad to hear and decide the review petition of the petitioner within three weeks. The petitioner was afforded hearing on 21-11-1994 and the following order was communicated to him and is alleged to have been received on 10-12-1994 by letter dated 23-11-1994:- "Reference Writ Petition No. 1087 of 1994, I am directed to refer personal hearing of 21-11-1994 in the office of the Director-General Education. It is to inform that the competent Authority has not agreed with your arguments and the decision already taken against you is still stand being the time-barred case This issues with the approval of Director-General, Education."

4. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 5-1-1995 which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.

5. The petitioner has contended that after his departmental appeal had been decided, he filed appeal before the Tribunal within the specified time from the receipt of the order and, therefore, it was not barred by time. It was further contended that the earlier appeal was filed before the disposal of the departmental appeal arid, therefore, it will not come in the way of the appeal filed after the decision and disposal of the departmental appeal. Reference can be made to Haji Qadir Bux v. Province of Sindh and others 1982 SCMR

582. It was further contended that the earlier appeal had been dismissed for non-prosecution and, therefore, the question of res judicata does not arise. Leave is granted to consider these questions. M.B.A./G-15/S Leave granted.