1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Agreeing with the Enquiry Officer's report the Postmaster, Al-Haidry Head Post Office, Karachi, the authority in the appellant's case, awarded the penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 12-12-1984.

7. The learned counsel for the Respondent-Department has raised the preliminary objection that the appeal riled by the appellant on 9-5-1985 is incompetent having been filed without availing of the departmental remedy as provided in section 4(1) (a) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. In reply, the stand taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant did submit a departmental appeal addressed to the Postmaster General, Southern Circle, Karachi, on 9-1-1985. It was further pointed out that a copy of this appeal stood annexed to the memo. of appeal. In support of this stand the learned counsel produced two receipts Nos. 192 and 193 dated 10-1-1985 showing that some letters had been sent under registered post on the said date. The representatives of the Respondent-Department denied having received any appeal. The learned counsel for the respondents went on to add that the postal receipts being relied upon must be in respect of some other communication because according to the appellant himself, he was not aware of his dismissal even on 16-1-1985 and had also not received a copy of the dismissal order by then. That being so, it was argued, how could the appellant have possibly submitted the departmental appeal on 9-1-1985. According to him the copy of the appeal annexed with the memo. of appeal containing references to the order of dismissal can be nothing but a managed affair.

8. We have heard both the parties in regard to the said preliminary objection. From the record produced before us we find that on 16-1-1985 the appellant submitted in writing to the Postmaster, AI-Haidry Post Office, Karachi, that his leave having expired on 15-1-1985 he was reporting for duty and that the fitness certificate from the District Health Officer, Government of Pakistan, was also enclosed. The Postmaster, AI-Haidery replied to the appellant the same day. His reply reads as under:- "PAKISTAN POST OFFICE From: POSTMASTER AL-HAIDRY HEAD OFFICE KARACHI To: Mr. Muhammad Arshad Jawaid, Ex-Clerk, Al-Haidry, H.O. Karachi. No.B-3/M.A. Jawaid Dated at Karachi, 16-1-1985 Ref: Your application dated 16-1-1985. I am to inform you that you have already been dismissed from Government service with effect from 12-12-1984 vide this Office Memo. No.F2/70-71, dated 12-12-1984. Sd/ POSTMASTER AL-HAIDRY HEAD OFFICE KARACHI." From the appellant's signatures obtained by the Postmaster on the office copy of the above letter, it is established that this reply was also received by the appellant the same day. On receipt of this letter, the appellant immediately and on the same day i.e. 16-1-1985 addressed in Urdu a request to the Postmaster which when translated into English would read as under:- "To The Postmaster, Al-Haidry, Karachi. Reference your No.B-3/M.A. Jawaid dated 16-1-1985. In view of my dismissal mentioned in your letter, referred to above, it is requested that I may please be supplied a copy of the order of dismissal so that I can know the details about my dismissal. Obedient Servant of the Government of Pakistan Muhammad Arshad Jawaid."

9. The documents quoted above, leave no doubt in our minds that on the 16th of January, 1985, by the appellant's own admission, he was not aware of the dismissal order nor the copy of these orders was available to him. Therefore, we are firmly of the view that he could not possibly have submitted his departmental appeal a weak earlier i.e. on 9-1-1985. We cannot help agreeing with the inference of the learned counsel for the respondents that the two postal receipts mast be in respect of communications pertaining to some other matter and, in any case, appellant's departmental appeal could not have been mailed under these receipts. We also notice that the two postal receipts dated 10-1-1985 show the name/designation of the addressee as Postmaster, Al-Haidry Head Office, Karachi, whereas the departmental appeal annexed with the memo. of appeal is addressed to the Postmaster General, Southern Circle, Karachi. Also, it is directly addressed to the Postmaster-General and not through "proper channel." If it had been intended to be sent/ through proper channel, only one cover in the name of he Postmaster, Al-Haidry would have been enough. If an advance copy was sent, at least in that receipt the addressee would have been the Postmaster General and not the Postmaster, Al-Haidry. But in both the postal receipts Postmaster, Al-Haidry has been named as the addresee. Also, it is not the appellant's case that any appeal or reminder was, at any stage, sent to the appellant authority.

10. For the foregoing reasons, the conclusion we have reached is that the appellant did not submit any departmental appeal against the orders of dismissal dated 12-12-1984. Thus the requirements of law as contained in section 4(1)(a) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, have not been met. The appeal filed on 9-5-1985 and now before us is thus incompetent and is, therefore, dismissed as such.

11. No order as to costs.

12. Parties to be informed accordingly. SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).

I agree that the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of its non-maintainability as it was filed without preferring departmental appeal as required under proviso (a) to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. I am also of the view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed on merits. The charge against the appellant that he had fraudulently encashed the Defence Saving Certificates of Mr. Mahrukh Mirza while he was Sub-Postmaster, Firdous Colony Post Office, Karachi was proved against him at the regular inquiry conducted in the matter. The reasons recorded by the Inquiry Officer, outlined at paragraph 6 of the judgment written by the learned Member, are quite convincing and that the appellant was rightly held guilty of the charge. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed on merits as well as on legal ground that it was filed without preferring departmental appeal. No order is made for costs. M.Y.H./515/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.