MANSOOR BABAR vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of the Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time-barred following the rejection of his condonation application. The petitioner, an Assistant Films Producer, faced disciplinary proceedings under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, resulting in his reduction in rank from Grade 18 to Grade 16. His review petition was rejected, and his subsequent appeal to the Service Tribunal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, with the petitioner seeking condonation on the ground that he misdirected his appeal to his departmental Director. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the Service Tribunal's factual determination refusing condonation of delay. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision. The Court laid down the principle that the Supreme Court does not sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by Tribunals where the Tribunal has properly exercised its jurisdiction and applied its mind.
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a finding of fact recorded by a Service Tribunal on an application for condonation of delay?
- Is misdirecting an appeal to a departmental head a valid ground for condonation of limitation before the Service Tribunal?
- Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973
ORDER
1. ' G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.-The petitioner, who held the post of Assistant Films Producer (Grade 18) in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, was proceeded against under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. After the inquiry was completed against him, he was found guilty and consequently the President of Pakistan. Who was the competent officer, reduced him from Grade 18 to Grade 16. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner filed a review petition, but the same was rejected, vide order dated 29th December, 1976. On receipt of the copy of the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Service Tribunal on 18th February, 1977, but since it was ex facie barred by limitation, he filed an application for the condonation of delay on the ground that owing to misunderstanding he had first filed the appeal before the Director of his Department and if the time spent in the Directorate was condoned. Then his appeal was within time. The Tribunal, however, felt dissatisfied and dismissed the said application on the ground that "The plea taken in the condonation application that the petitioner was misguided by the respondent that the appeal to the Tribunal was to be filed through him cannot be acceptedas valid and reasonable ground for condonation of delay"
2. ' In seeking leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said finding recorded by the Tribunal was not only harsh but illegal and so the case would require reconsideration by this Court in the interest of justice. We are afraid, there is no force in this contention. It is clear to us that the Tribunal, which was seized of the matter in its proper jurisdiction had applied its mind to the con donation application filed before it by the petitioner, but feeling dissatisfied with the ground urged therein dismissed the said application. It is well settled that this Court, does not sit in appeal over the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunals, and so it is unfortunate that the petitioner must suffer.
3. ' This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.