MUHAMMAD LQBAL BUTT Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL , J .‑‑Leave to appeal is being sought against the judgment dated 15th November, 1982 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed as time‑barred.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was served with a charge‑sheet by the Deputy Director, Food, Lahore on the allegation that while he was working as Foodgrain Inspector at PR Centre, Chuharkana he misappropriated Government stocks and stores causing considerable monetary loss to the Government. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge‑sheet. The matter was inquired into by the Inquiry Officer who submitted his report to the authorised officer holding that the petitioner was responsible for the loss caused. The authorised officer then issued notice to him to show cause as to why the amount of loss caused should not be recovered from him. He submitted his reply and was also personally heard, but the authorised officer was not satisfied with his explanation and decided against him. The petitioner appealed against the order of the authorised officer dated 4th October, 1979 whereby it was ordered to recover the amount of about Rupees forty thousand plus from the petitioner. The petitioner then filed an appeal against the said order before the Director of Food, Punjab on 13th October, 1979 but that appeal was not disposed of. Therefore, he filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore on 8th February, 1981. This appeal was dismissed as barred by time in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan titled Ahmad Ali Memon v. Government of Sind 1980 S C M R 260 and Haji Qadir Bakhsh v. Government of Sind 1982 S C M R 582. On the basis of these judgments the petitioner could have awaited the order of the appellate authority to the extent of 90 days and then he should have filed an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act within 30 days after the expiry of the aforesaid period of 90 days, but the petitioner did not do so. Therefore, the Punjab Service Tribunal relying on the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court had dismissed his appeal as time‑barred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that we should reconsider the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments but since this interpretation of law has already been accepted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the aforesaid judgments we are not inclined to review the same. The result is that there is no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.

4. S. Q./M‑32/S Petition dismissed.