2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
S.M. AFZAL-UR-REHMAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others
| Citation | 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | S.M. AFZAL-UR-REHMAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (S.M. AFZAL-UR-REHMAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th February, 2004.
- 4. We have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate?-on-Record for the petitioner. He has reiterated the same argument, which was advanced before the Tribunal and rightly rejected for valid reasons.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 7-6-2002 passed in Appeal No.107(K)(CS) of 2002).
S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Time-barred departmental representation
Civil servant was dismissed from service and his departmental representation was dismissed being barred by 185 days
Appeal before Service Tribunal was also dismissed
Plea raised by the civil servant was that letter of removal from service was received by his brother with whom the civil servant was not at good terms
If a person. had been negligent and indolent in prosecuting his remedy before the proper forum, he was not entitled to indulgence of the Court muchless enlargement of time by 185 days, more particularly, when his departmental representation was not entertained by the department itself
By not exercising discretion in favour of civil servant, the Tribunal neither acted illegally nor unreasonably
No strong ground was made for interfering with the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal which was neither unfair nor illegal or unreasonable
Once departmental appeal had been rejected as barred by time, service appeal would be incompetent, unless for sufficient reasons, Tribunal deemed it fit to condone the delay
Service Tribunal had decided otherwise to which Supreme Court declined to take any exception
No question of law of public importance was spelt out from the circumstances
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 7-6-2002 dismissing his service appeal against removal from service of National Highway Authority, as his departmental appeal against the penalty was rejected as barred by 185 days.
2. Precisely stated, after service of a show-cause notice on the petitioner, obtaining his reply and enquiring into the charge of unauthorised absence from duty for a long period of time, competent authority ordered removal of the petitioner from service vide letter, dated 23-5-2001. For the first time, petitioner represented against this action through departmental appeal dated 24-12-2001, which was rejected by the appellate authority i.e. the Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Railways, as time-barred vide letter, dated 16-2-2002.
3. Sole ground urged by the petitioner in support of his prayer for condonation of delay before the Tribunal was that he being out of station, letter of removal from service was received by his brother, with whom he was not on good terms, and actually he came to know about the removal order after seven months. The Tribunal did not feel persuaded by this submission of the petitioner and observed that the petitioner had not acted diligently in pursuing his remedy by not making departmental appeal within the period prescribed by law and was, thus, rightly non-suited by the departmental authority. The Tribunal accordingly declined to condone the delay and without entering into merits of the .appeal dismissed the same, hence this petition.
4. We have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate?-on-Record for the petitioner. He has reiterated the same argument, which was advanced before the Tribunal and rightly rejected for valid reasons.
5. If a person has been negligent and indolent in prosecuting his remedy before the proper forum, he is not entitled to indulgence of the Court, muchless enlargement of time by 185 days, more particularly; when his departmental representation was not entertained by the department itself. In our considered opinion, by not exercising discretion in favour of the petitioner, the Tribunal neither acted illegally nor unreasonably. There is no strong ground for interfering with the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal, which, on the face of it, was neither unfair nor illegal or unreasonable. It is well-settled that once a departmental appeal has been rejected as barred by time, service appeal would be incompetent, unless, for sufficient reasons, the Tribunal deems it fit to condone the delay. The Tribunal has obviously decided otherwise to which hardly any exception can be taken.
6. In our view, no question of law of public importance is spelt out from the circumstances with the consequence that this petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. M.H.-80/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.