MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALNAGAR
This civil petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing a service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner, a Patwari who had been compulsorily retired from service by the Deputy Commissioner, initially challenged the dismissal order in a civil suit, which abated pursuant to Section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. Following abatement, he sought copies of relevant orders to file an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. When the appeal was ultimately filed on 6-2-1975, the Service Tribunal held that it was barred by limitation because the petitioner failed to demonstrate diligence or provide documentary evidence of efforts made during a 38-day period prior to filing. The Supreme Court evaluated the Tribunal's decision and held that no fault could be found with the finding regarding lack of diligence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, affirming the rejection of the time-barred appeal.
- Does a lack of documentary evidence showing diligent efforts to procure necessary copies justify the dismissal of a service appeal as barred by limitation?
- Can a service appeal filed past the statutory period of limitation be condoned without a sufficient explanation for delay after the abatement of a civil suit?
- Section 8, Punjab Service Tribunals Act
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-Muhammad Sharif petitioner a Patwari, was charge-sheeted by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector,' Bahawalnagar on 3-5-1971. An inquiry was held and the Deputy Commissioner issued a show-cause notice to him. He was compulsorily retired from Service. He filed an appeal to the Commissioner which was rejected on 21-1-1972. He then filed a suit before the Senior Civil Judge, Chisbtian, District' Bahawalpur challenging these orders and the same abated in consequence of section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act and on 8-10-1974 the Senior Civil Judge declared it to be so. He applied for certified copies of `certain orders to the Deputy Commissioner and the office declined to give him those copies. He therefore, filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal on 6-2-1975, which has been rejected as barred by limitation. Hence this Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal. .
2. It has been submitted before us that since he could not get the copies of the orders from the Deputy Commissioner's office where for, he had to file the appeal after the period of limitation had expired.
3. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that--- "Thus for about 38 days i. e. From 30-12-74 to 6-2-75 there was no Documentary evidence available with the appellant to show that h made any efforts in this behalf."
The Tribunal, therefore, held that he had not acted diligently.
4. We find no fault with the order of the Tribunal and, therefore, dismissed this petition.