1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL RAZZAK A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑‑Appellant Mr. Sa'ad Sharif is presently working as Secretary, National Police Foundation. He filed Appeal No. 361(R) of 1995 wherein he challenged the order dated 15‑8‑1995 passed by the Managing Director, National Police Foundation with the result that he was not given desk work and cases were submitted direct to the Managing Director, by passing him, in violation of the established office procedure/decorum. When the appeal came up for preliminary hearing on 9‑10‑1995, the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal in view of the office order dated 5‑10‑1995, and a Bench of the Tribunal passed the following order: ".. The appellant wishes to withdraw the appeal in view of the office order dated 5‑10‑1995 which has been placed on record by the appellant. Request for withdrawal is allowed and consequently appeal is dismissed as withdrawn." The appellant has now come before this Tribunal by way of this Miscellaneous Application No. 46/96 with the request that the commitment made by the department has not been fulfilled, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and may be recalled.

2. We have heard the appellant at some length. He requests that this appeal be restored and reheard. No doubt, the Tribunal can restore an appeal under sub rule (3) of Rule 19 of the Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974, in case it is dismissed for non‑prosecution, but it has no power to review its own order. In the instant case, the appellant was present in person at the time of hearing and it was on his statement that he withdrew the appeal and accordingly the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Such a question had cropped up before this Tribunal in Appeal No. 447(x) of 1974 which was dismissed by the Tribunal, but subsequently the appellant therein made an application for rehearing of the same appeal, but the Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that it had become functus officio after deciding it and it had no jurisdiction to rehear it. The petitioner took the matter before the Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No. K/277 of 1980, and the case is reported in 1986 SCMR 965 (S.A. Rizvi v. Pakistan atomic Energy Commission and another). The Hon'ble Supreme Court maintained the order of the Tribunal and the concluding paragraph of the judgment of the Supreme Court reads as under:‑‑ 'The prayer in Appeal No. K‑277 of 1980 was for rehearing, and the Tribunal rightly refused it on the ground that it had no power to rehear it. Even if the prayer for rehearing is regarded to be a review still the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal de novo. This appeal is also without substance and is dismissed." In another case reported in 1986 SCMR 808 (Federation of Pakistan and another v. Lt.-Col. Fateh Khan), the Hon ble Supreme Court had held similar view that the Tribunal has no power of reviewing or reversing its earlier decision. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Application No.46/96 in Appeal No. 361 (R) of 1995 is misconceived and it is dismissed. H.B.T./56/Sr.F Application dismissed.