1993 PLC(CS) 1430

AMIR AFZAL Versus QUARTER MASTER-GENERAL, PAKISTAN ARMY QMG'S BRANCH, GHQ, RAWALPINDI

Citation1993 PLC(CS) 1430

CourtFederal Service Tribunal

Case No.Appeal No. 78(R) of 1993

Date1993-07-12

Judge(s)Rana Rifat Saeed and Misbah Ullah Khan, Members

ResultAppeal dismissed

1. RANA RIFAT SAEED (MEMBER): Appeal No. 466(R) of 1992 had been withdrawn by, the appellant on 9‑2‑1993 to await for the final order against his representation which he had submitted to the. Departmental authorities on 28‑7‑1992. The learned counsel had stated that he had received the final order from the respondent Department rejecting his representation vide letter dated 25‑2‑1993 which reads as under:‑

2. "General Headquarters

3. QMG's Branch (Q‑Coord),

4. Rawalpindi

5. Tel:GHQ/31126

6. No.184/04/R/CSD/Q‑Coord

7. 25th February, 1993.

8. To

9. PF‑2150 SGM

10. Ch. Amir Afzal, Ex‑Manager c/o Abid Brothers Contractor (Pvt.) Ltd., B/9 Nasir Mansion, Khyber Bazar, Railway Road No.2, P.O.Box No.389, Peshawar.

11. Copy to: Head Office CSD, Rawalpindi

12. Subed: Appeal Against Dismissal from CSD Service

13. Your letter, dated 7th February, 1993 refers.

14. Your appeal dated 23rd September, 1992 for reinstatement in CSD service was considered sympathetically by the Chairman BOC (:SD and the same was rejected by him. You were informed vide our Letter No. 184/03/R/CSD/Q‑Coord, dated 14th October, 1992 accordingly.

15. (Sd.) Lt.‑Col.

16. Secretary, Board of Control CSD for Quartermaster‑General

17. (Muhammad Bakhsh)"

18. This showed that the respondent Department had already rejected his appeal. vide their letter dated 14‑10‑1992 which according to the appellant's learned counsel had not been received by him. Appellant's earlier appeal dated 28‑7‑1992 had already been rejected by the Deptt. vide letter dated 15‑8‑1992 which is reproduced below‑

19. "Head' Office, CSD

20. Post Box No‑1039

21. Rawalpindi

22. Tel No: 30808

23. PA/552/SLK/A‑5

24. 15th August 1992.

25. To:

26. PF‑2150 SGM

27. Ch. Amir Afzal .

28. C/o HO, CSD (HP Sec)

29. Rawalpindi

30. Subject: Appeal against Dismissal PF02150 SGM Ch. Amir Afzal

31. This is with reference to your appeal, dated 28th July, 1992. Due consideration has been given, to your request but it is regretted that the same cannot be acceded to.

32. (Sd.) Lt: Col.

33. Director Personnel and Admn, CSD

34. (M. Riaz ud Din)."

2. The learned counsel had been asked to produce the letter of appointment of the appellant and terms and conditions of his service in the C.S.D., G.H.Q. and he could not show or produce the letter of appointment. Upon an other observation whether the appellant was a civil servant, the learned counsel had produced a photostat copy of the C.S.D. Manual (Exhibit `A'), wherein it had been mentioned that the C.S.D's. a Non‑Government Commercial Concern under the M/o Defence. for welfare of Armed Forces Personnel.. This was, therefore, doubtful whether the appellant was a Government servant or even a civil servant. The learned counsel could not establish the status of the appellant as a civil servant.

3. Departmental representative had stated that according to para 3 of the dismissal order dated 20‑7‑1992, it had been indicated that the appellant had been dismissal from service w.e.f. 20‑7‑1992 under Rule 85 d(2) and e(4) of the C.S.D. Manual of Instructions and Procedure, 1965. This also showed that dismissal of the appellant had not taken place under the E&D Rules and as such the appellant was not a civil servant.

4. It further transpired that the final orders had been passed by the respondent Department on 15‑8‑1992 and 14‑10‑1992, whereas the ‑appellant submitted the instant appeal on 21‑3‑1993 and which was evidently hit by limitation.

5. Under these circumstances and after hearing the parties, we conclude as under:‑‑

(a) Appeal is hit by limitation factor.

(b) Appellant's learned counsel has neither been able to produce a copy of appointment letter or terms and conditions of his service nor prove whether C.S.D. is a Government Deptt and its employees are civil servants under meanings of Civil Servants Act, 1973.

(c) Department has followed C.S.D. Manual of Instructions and Procedure, 1965 and not the Efficiency and Disciplines Rules, 1973 made under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, while dismissing the appellant.

(d) So, (b) and (c) are enough proof that the appellant is not a civil servant.

(e) Accordingly the appeal is not maintainable, is misconceived and incompetent.

35. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed under these terms.

6. No order as to costs.

36. H.B.T./868/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.