1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD BOOTH Versus THE STATE and 4 others
| Citation | 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Munawar Ali Khan, Chairman, Dr. A. Q. Qazi and Manzoorul Haq Effendi, Members |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BOOTH Versus THE STATE and 4 others |
| Primary Law | Sind Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Munawar Ali Khan, Chairman, Dr. A. Q. Qazi and Manzoorul Haq Effendi, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD BOOTH Versus THE STATE and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. H. Alivi for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 6th July, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.4‑‑Appeal against dismissal by civil servant‑‑After dismissal of departmental appeal civil servant filing revision before next higher authority instead of filing appeal before Service Tribunal‑‑Appeal filed by civil servant before Service Tribunal after dismissal of his revision, whether, competent‑‑Since period of limitation was to be computed from the date of dismissal of departmental appeal, which was the final order, appeal filed by civil servant before Service Tribunal after decision of his revision, held, was time‑barred by more than 19 months‑‑There being no application for condonation of delay, appeal was dismissed as time‑barred. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑This appeal has been filed by Muhammad Boots, ex‑Head Constable of Police. He has called in question the order of his dismissal, dated 23‑4‑1985 passed by SP Thatta. Preliminary objection raised by the learned A.A.‑G. was that the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred. The learned counsel for the appellant was heard with regard to the said objection.
2. It appears that the impugned order of appellant's dismissal was passed on 23‑4‑1985 and he went in appeal against the said order to the DIG on 4‑5‑1985. It is an admitted position that the DIG rejected the appeal by his order dated 1‑10‑1985. Instead of challenging this order of the appellate authority before this Tribunal the appellant went in revision to the IG. The record shows that the revision application filed by him was rejected by the IG vide his order dated 2‑7‑1986. The question that falls for our determination is whether the order of the DIG rejecting the departmental appeal preferred by the appellant or that of IG dismissing the appellant's revision application was, final appellate order within the meaning of section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunal Act 1973. After giving our best thought to this point we are inclined to the view that the order passed by the DIG as an appellate authority was the final appellate order. After the DIG rejected the departmental appeal of the appellant it was up to him either to agitate the matter further before the departmental authorities by going in revision etc, or in the alternative approached this Tribunal in service appeal under section 4 hereinabove. However, he chose the former course. Since the period of limitation is to be computed from the date of the DIG's order, this appeal which had been filed on 26‑7‑1986 was obviously delayed by more than 9 months. Appellant has taken no plea in the memo of appeal that the order passed by the DIG was served on him late nor has he given any application for condonation of delay. For above reasons we have no option but to dismiss the appeal as time‑barred. A.A. /142/Sr.S Appeal dismissed.