JAMAL DIN Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT

ORDER

SARDAR MUHAMMAD SAJAWAL KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑‑This is an appeal by Jamal Din Girdawar posted in the Demarcation Department (Forests Division), Rawalakot Poonch. Through this appeal he has impugned the original order of punishment, dated 12‑9‑1989 of Settlement Officer, Poonch by which his one month's salary was disallowed and forfeited. In addition to that the appellant has impugned the order, dated 20‑9‑1990 and 25‑4‑1991 of Additional Commissioner (Settlement), Muzaffarabad by which his appeal and review petition before him were also dismissed. The appellant has impleaded Azad Government through Chief Secretary, Secretary Revenue, Additional Commissioner (Settlement), Muzaffarabad and the Settlement Officer, Poonch Rawalakot as respondents.

2. The facts of the case as are narrated by the appellant in the memo of his appeal are that the impugned order was made by the Settlement Officer Poonch (respondent No.4) on the basis of a report of Naib‑Tehsildar without having obtained the report of Tehsildar who was then supervising the work of Settlement Operation in Tehsil Rawalakot. The impugned order was made by the respondent No.4 without supplying a charge‑sheet to the appellant in violation of the mandatory provisions of Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1977. It is further stated by the appellant that no enquiry was held in his case and he was condemned unheard: Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Settlement Officer, the appellant brought an appeal and a review petition against the order passed on his appeal before the Additional Commissioner Settlement (respondent No.3) but both the appeal as well as the review petition were rejected. According to the appellant, the orders impugned above were passed mala fidely by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 with a view to stopping the due promotion of the appellant. Hence the present appeal.

3. It is prayed by the appellant that after accepting the present appeal, the impugned orders may be set aside for being contrary to the law and facts.

4. By a short order of this Tribunal, the above appeal was admitted for regular hearing and the respondents were asked to file their written objections if any as to the maintainability of the present appeal. On behalf of the respondent Government, it was submitted that the appeal was time‑barred and as such it was not maintainable at this forum. The impugned orders were made by the respondents quite in accordance with law and no provision of the efficiency and disciplinary rules was violated by any of them. The appeal was meriting dismissal.

5. We have considered the arguments as were addressed at the Bar by the learned counsel of each party. We have examined the impugned orders placed on the file. It is very true that one month's salary of the appellant was ordered to be forfeited by way of punishment by the Settlement Officer (respondent No.4). But it is not true that the impugned order of punishment was made by the Settlement Officer on the sole report of Naib‑Tehsildar. In fact, the Tehsildar had also made a number of adverse reports against the appellant and there is little truth in it that he was bypassed or that he had no knowledge of the proceedings taken against the appellant. This argument is also without any substance that no charge‑sheet was supplied to the appellant before making the impugned order. While going through the record, we find that a charge‑sheet was properly supplied to the appellant and his reply to the said charge‑sheet was considered by the Settlement Officer before making the impugned order of punishment.

6. The original order of punishment was made by the Settlement Officer Poonch, Rawalakot on 12th September, 1989 and the appeal against that order before the Settlement Commissioner at Muzaffarabad brought by the appellant was quite within time. This appeal was dismissed on 20‑9‑1990 and a further appeal against the impugned order of the Appellate Authority was due to be made before this Tribunal within next thirty days after the date of the communication of the order passed on appeal to the appellant. In the memo, A of his appeal the appellant has not mentioned anything as to when the impugned order of the Appellate Authority was communicated to him. In absence of such pleading by the appellant, it shall be presumed that the said order was communicated to him on the date it was made by the Appellate Authority and the second appeal by the appellant must have been brought before this Tribunal not later than 20th October, 1990. But the present appeal was brought to this Tribunal on 6‑6‑1991 which is hopelessly time‑barred.

7. For the above reasons the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

A.A./202/SrA Appeal dismissed.