NADEEM MASOOD SIDDIQUI vs QESCO/WAPDA through DirectorGeneral and
This civil petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi Bench, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal against the refusal to expunge adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report on the grounds of being barred by time and devoid of merits. The core legal questions involve whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to re-adjudicate the question of limitation after it had already been settled by its earlier order, and whether the impugned judgment suffered from lack of reasoning on merits. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the issue of limitation was no longer open for adjudication having been decided earlier, and that the Tribunal's decision lacked valid reasoning. The case was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law, establishing that a tribunal cannot review its earlier concluded finding on limitation and must provide reasoned adjudication on merits.
- Whether the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to review its earlier interlocutory order deciding the question of limitation in favor of the appellant?
- Does an appellate tribunal order dismissing an appeal on merits without valid reasoning and application of mind sustain in law?
' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---By this civil petition, petitioner Nadeem Masood Siddiqui has sought leave of this Court to impugn the judgment dated 16-11-2010, in Appeal No,166(K)CS/2004, passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi Bench (in short the Tribunal), whereby the said appeal against the order of the departmental authority dated 3-3-2003, refusing to expunge adverse remarks in his ACR for the period ending on 31-12-2002, was dismissed, precisely, for the reason being barred by time and also devoid of merits.
2. The petitioner, while arguing the point of limitation decided by the Tribunal against him in the impugned judgment, placed on record copy of earlier order of the Tribunal dated 10-9-2004 in the same appeal to show that it was clearly held by the Tribunal in the said order that appeal of the petitioner was within time and accordingly admitted, therefore, the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order, had no jurisdiction to review such earlier order. He further contended that, in this regard on merits too, findings of the Tribunal are erroneous as the Tribunal had itself noted filing of said appeal on the last day of limitation. He also contended that the order of the Tribunal regarding dismissal of his appeal on merits lacks any valid reasoning or application of mind and thus, not sustainable in law.
3. Mr. Anwar Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondents Nos,1 to 4, when confronted with the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 10-9-2004, candidly conceded that point of limitation was no more alive before the Tribunal for adjudication as it had already been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner. He also could not controvert the other submissions of the petitioner as to the lack of valid reasoning and application of mind by the Tribunal in adjudicating the appeal before it, preferred by the petitioner.
4. This being the position, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed in the terms that the impugned judgment dated 16-11-2010 is set aside and Appeal No,166(K)CS/2004 is remanded to the Tribunal for its fresh disposal on merits and in accordance with law.