2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, CJ.

The captioned appeal by leave of the Court has arisen out of the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 28.08.2018, whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant, herein, has been dismissed in limine.

2. The precise facts of the case are that the appellant, herein, was awarded major punishment after inquiry by the competent authority and was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 08.11.2014. Against the aforesaid order, he filed departmental appeal before the competent authority which was decided on 27.07.2018. The legality and correctness of the order dated 27.07.2018 was challenged, by the appellant, herein, before the Service Tribunal by way of appeal on 09.08.2018. The learned single member of the Service Tribunal after hearing the appellant dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation as well as non-maintainability.

3. Mr. Muhammad Nadeem Raja, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant after narration of necessary facts submitted that the impugned judgment of learned Service Tribunal is against law and facts. The appeal was filed within limitation from the date of communication of final order dated 27.07.2018 through which the departmental order dated 08.11.2014 was upheld. He submitted that under the provisions of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1975 the appeal before the Service Tribunal is competent against the final order whether original or appellate. The order passed on 27.07.2018 was an appellate order, therefore, the appeal was competent from the date of this order. He further submitted that the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal is not maintainable even on the ground that a single member is not empowered to decide the appeal.

4. Conversely, Mr. Mehmood Hussain Chaudhary, Additional Advocate-General, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the law on the legal proposition of limitation for filing appeal before the Service Tribunal is now almost settled. This Court in a number of judgments has very categorically enunciated the principle of law that the civil servant is bound to file appeal before the Service Tribunal within the prescribed limitation from the date of departmental order he is aggrieved from. The basic grievance of the appellant is against the order dated 08-11-2014 through which he was compulsorily retired from service and against this order he has filed an appeal after almost four years on 09.08.2018. So far as the other point that the single member cannot decide the appeal, is concerned, it also has no substance as under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1976 and the rules made thereunder the appeal can be dismissed, in limine by single member and only after admission of appeal for regular hearing the appeal shall have to be decided by the tribunal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record made available. According to the stated facts and record the appellant is aggrieved from the departmental order dated 08.11.2014 through which he has been compulsorily retired from service. Although according to his claim he filed representation against this order before the departmental authority which has been turned down vide order dated 27.07.2018 but it makes no difference because on this legal proposition the law is already settled in a number of judgments including the cases reported as Shabbir Ahmed v. Azad Government and others [1997 PLC (C.S.) 478] and Javaid Ejaz v. Authority under Azad Jammu and Kashmir and others [2015 SCR 744]. Therefore, the Service Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal in limine on the point of limitation.

6. The other argument relating competency of single member to decide the appeal, also has no substance because under the provisions of section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1975 read with Rule 5(1) of second schedule the single member bench is competent to dismiss the appeal in limine, thus, the impugned judgment is quite in accordance with law. The appellant has failed to make out any ground for interference. Therefore, finding no force this appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. SA/65/SC(AJ&K) Appeal dismisse