2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The facts giving rise to the instant Constitution petition are that the petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, was recruited as a driver in the Office of Director, Soil Conservation, Jhelum on 2-1-1984. His services were terminated by Deputy Director, Soil Conservation, Jhelum, on 26-5-1998. Feeling himself aggrieved of the said termination of his service by the respondents, he preferred an, appeal before the Director, Soil Conservation, Rawalpindi, as in the meantime he had been transferred to Rawalpindi. This appeal had been preferred by him on 30-5-1998. The grievance made by the petitioner in the Constitution petition is that his departmental appeal which as aforesaid was filed on 30-5-1998 has not seen the light of the day eversince its institution and awaits its disposal in accordance with law by the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the one hand services of the petitioner have been terminated when he had rendered 15 years unblemished service with the respondents and he was thereby rendered jobless, and on the other hand, the Appellate Authority is, sitting over his departmental appeal and not passing any order thereon with the result that the petitioner is not in a position to prefer any appeal to the Provincial Service Tribunal so as to seek his redress there from against his termination. The petitioner has accordingly approached this Court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction so as to issue a direction to the Appellate Authority to attend to and to dispose of the petitioner's departmental appeal as the same has already been inordinately delayed.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the grievance made by the petitioner in the Constitution petition is such as cannot be taken exception to. The departmental authorities before whom the aggrieved civil servants prefer their representations/appeals are under a statutory obligation to dispose of the same within a reasonable period of time so that the civil servants concerned may have recourse to the appropriate Service Tribunal for seeking redress of the grievances arising out of the departmental action against them. The law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, in PLD 1981 SC 612 titled as S.H.M. Rizvi and 5 others v. Maqsood Ahmad and 6 others applies to the facts of the petitioner's case on all fours. The Honourable Supreme Court took a serious view of the matter in the reported case on the inaction of the departmental authorities in the matter of the departmental appeals/representations., The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner as to the petitioner's grievance arising out to the non-disposal of his departmental appeal by the Appellate Authority of the department is so genuine that I do not feel like putting the respondents on notice as to this Constitution petition ,and proceed,, to accept the same straightaway. It is indeed very callous on the part of the Director, Soil Conservation to sit over such a tiny matter for a period of about 2-1/2 years. This tendency in the departmental authorities is such as should be out rightly Condemned for the reason that 'the inaction on their part on the departmental appeals/representations is ulteriorly motivated, in that having terminated the services of a civil servant, they punish him twice by sitting over his departmental appeal/representation and not disposing it of thereby stopping the aggrieved civil servant from approaching the Service Tribunal for seeking redress of his grievance against the departmental action. I accordingly accept the Constitution petition straightaway without putting the respondents on notice as doing so would further add to the agony of the petitioner who has already suffered a lot. Having put in 15 years' service to his credit he was shunted out of service lock stock and banal most unceremoniously, in that having put in so long a service with the respondent ?department and his service record being absolutely unblemished, his services were terminated without caring even to issue to the petitioner, any show-cause notice or charge-sheet so as to enable him to know the precise charge against him. I further direct that the office of this Court shall transmit a copy of this order accepting the Constitution petition to the respondent-department immediately with a direction to attend to the petitioner's appeal lying with them and to dispose the same of within one month of the receipt of this order. In the event of not complying with the direction issued by this Court to the aforesaid effect, the respondent Director Soil Conservation shall expose himself to an action in contempt. The Appellate Authority/Director, Soil Conservation is further directed to send a copy of the order disposing of the petitioner's departmental appeal to this Court through its Deputy Registrar (Judicial). H.B.T./448/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.