1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). --Mazhar Ali, Agent to the Government of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore, has filed this appeal a/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, against the order of respondent No.l dated 1-10-1983, retiring the appellant compulsorily from service on 7-5-1984 rejecting the review petition filed by the appellant against the aforesaid order of retirement and also order of respondent No.3 terminating the lien of Superintending Engineer of the appellant vide notification issued on the 24th November, 1983, by treating the appellant as retired from service. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and he may be reinstated in service with all back benefits from 3-6-1978. He has further prayed that the order of respondent No.3, dated 24-11-1983, terminating the lien of the appellant as Superintending Engineer, Irrigation and Power Department, be also set aside and cancelled. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Chairman, State Cement Corporation of Pakistan, in "irade-21 was placed under suspension alongwith six other senior officers of the said Corporation, under the orders of the President of Pakistan. The President of Pakistan appointed Mr. Inayat Ullah, O.S.D. Establishment Division to conduct inquiry into the affairs of the said State Cement Corporation. As a result of the said inquiry, it was held that the appellant was guilty of misconduct. However, a show-cause notice was served upon the appellant dated 5-3-1979, under rule 4(1)(b) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973, as to why major penalty of dismissal so provided under the Rules, should not be imposed upon him. This show-cause notice was accompanied by statement of Allegations. Another revised show-cause notice was issued on 8-4-1979 and ultimately after receiving the explanation of the appellant, it was found that the same was not satisfactory, therefore, on 1-10-1983 the appellant was compulsorily retired under the orders of the President of Pakistan. He filed review petition regarding the said order of compulsory retirement but the same was rejected on 7-5-1984, by the competent authority. The appellant filed another review petition, which was also rejected on 24-6-1984. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the Standing Counsel for the Federal Government and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. 5. Before touching the merits of the case, learned District Attorney and learned counsel for respondent Federal Government Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate, have come out with the following objections:- (1) That the appeal of the appellant is time-barred as the appellant after rejection of his review petition did not come before this Tribunal within 30 days. (2) That the appellant being APUG cadre working in Grade-21, was for all purposes a servant of Federal Government, therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain his appeal. (3) That even assuming without conceding that the appellant was holding lien with the Provincial Government and was employee of Provincial Government for the purposes of this appeal, he has failed to exhaust departmental remedy a/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, to file appeal/ representation to the next higher authorities regarding the said termination. 6. However, without entering in these two controversial points, we confronted the appellant's counsel with the proposition so set up by the learned counsel for the respondent, that the appellant has failed to exhaust proper remedy as envisaged in section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, with regard to his prayer that the order of termination of his lien be also set aside. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the order being void no appeal lies against it. According to him as a matter of abundant caution he has filed application for condonation of delay. With regard to the maintainability of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is establishes: on record that appellant was or deputation from the Provincial Government to the Central Government and his name was shown in the seniority list dated 16-7--1981 of Superintending Engineers, before he was finally retired by the President of Pakistan on 1-10-1983. 7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that nothing has been brought on record to prove that any such appeal or representation so provided under the Rules was made against the said termination of lien to the competent authority. This being so we have no alternative but to dispose of appeal as premature with the direction that appellant would be under obligation to exhaust all such remedies available to him as laid down u/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, before coming to this Tribunal for redress of grievance. The appeal is disposed of as premature. There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties. A.E./78/Sr.T Appeal disposed of as premature.