SKEENA BEBI Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

SARDAR MUHAMAD SAJAWAL KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑ ‑The present appeal is directed against the order dated 1‑11‑1990 of District Superintendent Jail, Kotli by which the appellant was dismissed out of service. The appeal is also directed against the order dated 8‑1‑1991 by which the order of dismissal passed against the appellant was confirmed by the inspector General of Prisons.

2. The relevant facts of the case as are contained in the memo of appeal are that the appellant was temporarily appointed as Family Warder in District Jail, Kotli and she was ordered to remain on probation for period of two years but soon after her appointment, she was placed under suspension for facing certain charges of misconduct and dereliction of duties. Later on she was reinstated on her post with a note of warning that she would be careful for future. On 23‑9-1990 she was again placed under suspension and proceedings under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1977 (hereinafter to be referred as E&D Rules, 1977) were initiated against her and Assistant Superintendent Jail, Kotli was appointed as Inquiry Officer. On the basis of report submitted by the said Inquiry Officer the appellant was dismissed out of service under the impugned order. It is stated in appeal that the appellant had brought an appeal against the impugned order of dismissal before the Inspector‑General of Prisons but the same was not successful. Hence she has brought this second appeal for invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act. She seeks reversal of the impugned orders on the following grounds:‑‑

(a) that while conducting the inquiry against the appellant, the provisions of AJ&K Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1977 have not been followed.

(b) that the impugned order of dismissal has been made against the appellant on the basis of false charges which were never proved against her in accordance with the rules of procedure.

(c) that the appellant was not afforded an opportunity of cross‑examining the witnesses appearing against her.

(d) that the inquiry was conducted secretly without following the relevant rules of procedure.

(e) that the inquiry proceedings were completed ex parte without associating the appellant.

(f) that the appellant was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and the impugned order of dismissal was not maintainable for having been made in violation of provisions of E&D Rules.

3. The prayer of the appellant is that after setting aside the impugned orders she may be reinstated on her post with all her service benefits.

4. By a short order dated 2‑5‑1991 of this Tribunal the appeal was admitted for regular hearing before this Tribunal. The respondents were asked to submit their objections if any. The objections filed on behalf of them are that the appeal was not maintainable for being time‑barred and that the impugned order was made during her probationary period of service. Since the appellant‑had failed to successfully complete her probationary period of service, she was rightly removed out of service for her misconduct and dereliction of duty.

5. We have carefully considered the contents of the appeal and the relevant impugned, orders which have been made by the Jail Authorities. We have also considered the arguments as were addressed at the bar by the learned counsel of each party. It is available on the record that the appellant feeling herself aggrieved by the aforesaid order of her dismissal from service had brought an appeal before the Inspector‑General of Prisons for the redress of her grievances but it is not clear whether her appeal was decided within the stipulated period of three months w.e.f. the date of institution of her appeal. Her appeal was received in the office of Inspector‑General of Prisons on 13‑11‑1990 and after the lapse of the period of three months and the period of one month provided for taken in appeal to this Tribunal, the appellant was `required to file her appeal at this forum on or before 12‑3‑1991. But the appellant brought her appeal in this forum on 31‑3‑1991 which is undoubtedly filed after 18 days from the date the prescribed period of limitation for filing such appeal was over. The appellant has brought an application for condonation of the delay in her favour but we do not find any good ground for allowing the delay to be condoned. Hence the preliminary objection raised by the respondents with regard to the present appeal as time‑barred carries weight and the appeal is meriting dismissal for being time‑barred. Apart from that according to the appointment order Family Warder, the appellant had entered in service of Jail Department on 3‑10‑1989 and after passing a period of service of about 8 months she had the misfortune of being placed under suspension for facing an inquiry into the charges brought against her under AJ&K (E&D) Rules, 1977. This time she was treated leniently and on 1''‑6‑1990 she was reinstated on her post with a note of warning that she would be careful in future. But the luck did not favour her to continue her service peacefully and she was once again placed under suspension for facing inquiry into certain charges brought against her by the Jail Authorities. Mr. Muhammad Saeed, Assistant Superintendent Jail, Kotli was appointed as Inquiry Officer and on the basis of report of said Inquiry Officer the appellant was dismissed out of service under the impugned order. The impugned order of dismissal was subsequently confirmed by the Inspector‑General of Prisons after obtaining a fresh inquiry report from Superintendent Jail, Muzaffarabad.

6. There is no denying the fact that the appellant held a temporary post of Family Warder and she had not successfully completed her period of probation for earning a right of service in the Jail Department. The appellant was placed under suspension twice for facing the charges of misconduct despite the fact that she was administered a note of warning while reinstating her on her post after her first suspension. Since the appellant failed to complete the period of probation successfully her services could be dispensed with at any time without issue of show‑cause notice and an inquiry under AJ&K (E&D) Rules was hardly necessary. In the circumstances of the case we find no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to the costs.

A.A./170/Sr.A Appeal dismissed.