1996SCMR667 (PLP)
KHALID HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WATER,AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its
| Citation | 1996SCMR667 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ |
| Parties | KHALID HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WATER,AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996SCMR667 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996SCMR667 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996SCMR667 (PLP) (KHALID HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WATER,AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Date of hearing: 29th January, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 27‑7‑1994 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal Camp at Lahore in Appeal No. 196/L/94). Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978‑‑ . ‑‑‑‑R. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Employee of WAPDA‑‑‑ Disciplinary action‑‑‑Fine as penalty and withholding of increment for one year‑‑‑Service Tribunal dismissed employee's appeal for he had filed departmental appeal after more than 2‑1/2 years of imposition of penalty‑‑‑Only explanation given by employee while seeking condonation of delay was that documents to be filed by him with appeal were in his native village in flood area, therefore, he was late in filing the appeal‑‑‑Such explanation was not accepted by Service Tribunal and his appeal was dismissed‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Held, Service Tribunal was right in not accepting explanation given by employee; even if employee's village had remained under flood for some time it could not be believed that he could not go there for 2‑1/2 years‑‑‑Service Tribunal, therefore, was right in rejecting appeal of employee on ground of limitation‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.
The petitioner, Khalid Hussain, a Line Superintendent of the Water and Power Development 'Authority, faced disciplinary action with the result that he was directed to pay Rs.42,000 as penalty and his increment for one year was also withheld without cumulative effect. Order in this regard was passed on 21-10-1991. He filed departmental appeal on 17-3-1994 but without success. Then, after ninety days, he preferred an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal on 24-7-1994.
2. The learned Service Tribunal found that the appeal was time-barred. Only explanation given by the petitioner while seeking condonation of delay was that the documents to be filed by him with the appeal were in his native village in the flood area and, therefore, he was late in filing the appeal. This explanation did not find favour with the learned Service Tribunal. His appeal was, therefore, dismissed by the learned Tribunal in limine stating that satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay of more than 2-1/2 years in filing departmental appeal had not been furnished. The petitioner seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment of the learned Tribunal.
3. It was not denied by the petitioner that he was guilty of delay in claiming relief. We feel that the learned Tribunal was right in not accepting the explanation given by him. It is not possible to believe that he could not go to his village for about 2-1/2 years. Even if it had remained under flood for sometime, normally, the flood water takes one or two months to recede. Be that as it may, the petitioner could certainly reach his village within a couple of months by making a little bit of effort, if it was needed in the circumstances of the case. In our opinion, the learned Tribunal was right in rejecting his appeal on the ground of limitation and, therefore, it is not a fit case for grant of leave against the judgment of the learned Tribunal.
4. Resultantly, this petition fails. It is, accordingly, dismissed. A.A./K-299/S Leave refused.