1996SCMR1425 (PLP)

RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.

On 30th of November, 1989, Regional Manager, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Mardan issued Memorandum No.ROM:5(23)/89/1739 disclosing that the petitioner (Amir Nawab), Abdul Hameed and Iftikhar Ullah, the respondents Nos.4 and 5 were guilty of gross negligence, inefficiency, embezzlement, deterioration of Bank's image and had also tampered with the official record. Muhammad Rafiq, Regional Operation Officer, Mardan was appointed to conduct inquiry into the allegations stated above. After the positive result of the inquiry, the petitioner was imposed penalty of reduction of one stage lower in his time scale of pay. Similarly, vide another memorandum, he was found to have embezzled Rs.5,639 and in consequence, vide Office Memorandum No. ROM(23)/90/1997/2004, dated 20th of November, '1990, penalty of reduction of one stage lower in his time scale of pay was imposed upon him. These orders were challenged by the petitioner by filing two Constitution petitions. A learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court vide separate judgment dated 31st of May, 1995 dismissed the petitions. These petitions for leave to appeal have been instituted to call in question the judgment of the High Court.

2. Learned counsel submits that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. It is added that respondent No.l, Regional Manager was not competent to impose penalty upon the-petitioner in the given situation.

3. We have not been persuaded to hear the case on merits inasmuch as after about four years, these writ petitions were instituted by the petitioner in the High Court. Applications to condone delay and laches in tiling the Constitution petitions were filed on 3-10-1994. The grounds taken therein were as follows:

(a) That the petitioner had a very good case and it was promised by the Department that the penalty imposed would be set aside after rejection of appeal of the applicant but when the said promise was turned down the applicant is bringing the attached writ petition and the delay is simply by reason of the promise of the respondent department. (b) That the applicant has a very good prima facie case and delay if any, in filing such like 'cases is condonable as there is no any period of limitation in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. (c) That the cause of action still continues and the applicant can be granted the relief prayed for in the writ petition. (d) That it will be in the interest of justice if the applicant is condoned delay/lathes in filing the attached writ petition." The abovementioned grounds do not satisfy us to show that they were plausible, satisfactory or reasonable to relax such an inordinate delay of four years in film, the petitions in High Court. The grounds are, undoubtedly, afterthought arid fake just to defeat the ends of law. It was the duty of the petitioner to explain the delay with good grounds which he failed to advance. We hold the view that lenient view was taken by the competent Authority against the petitioner while imposing penalty although he was found to have misappropriated the money the bank. The conduct of the petitioner in bringing these belated petitions is also doubtful on face of record. We, therefore, dismiss both the petitions by refusing leave to appeal. A.A/A-1394/S Leave refused.