MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his compulsory retirement from service on grounds of limitation and merits. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner's appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred and whether the compulsory retirement was justified based on the petitioner's service record. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was indeed time-barred, as it was filed beyond the 90-day period prescribed by the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, following the establishment of the Tribunal. The Court further affirmed the Tribunal's finding on merits, noting that the petitioner's service record contained adverse entries that justified the competent authority's decision to compulsorily retire him for inefficiency. The key principle laid down is that departmental appeals not provided for under relevant service rules do not extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before a Service Tribunal, and that adverse entries in a service record constitute a valid basis for compulsory retirement by the competent authority.
- Does a departmental appeal not provided for under relevant service rules extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before a Service Tribunal?
- Is an appeal filed after the 90-day period from the establishment of the Service Tribunal liable to be rejected as time-barred?
- Can adverse entries in a service record justify an order of compulsory retirement for inefficiency?
- Section 4, Service Tribunals Act 1973
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J. This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order made by the Federal Service Tribunal on the 28th of May, 1976, by which an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of his compulsory retirement from service was dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.
2. The petitioner was serving as a Lower Division Clerk in 502 Central Workshop; Rawalpindi, when he was served with an order of compulsory retirement on the 6th of January, 1973. He filed a civil suit on 15‑2‑1973 to challenge the legality of this order, which abated on the 28th of November 1973, on the promulgation of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before the Director, N. W. R. on 19‑12‑1973, but by a communication dated the 17th of June, 1974, he was informed to approach the Service Tribunal. He, accordingly, filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal on the 28th of August, 1974.
3. The Tribunal has observed that the appeal had to be instituted within 90 days of the establishment of the Tribunal, and as the Tribunal was established on 22nd of January, 1974, the appeal should have been filed up to 23rd of May, 1974, but it was filed more than three months thereafter, and was therefore, liable to be rejected on this ground. The Tribunal has also gone into the merits of the case and has found that there were several adverse entries in the service record of the petitioner, on the basis of which he could be compulsorily retired on account of inefficiency.
4. The petitioner, who has argued his case in person, submits that when his suit was held to have abated by the civil Court, the Tribunal had not yet been established, and it was for this reason that he filed a departmental appeal before the Director N. W. R., and after receiving a reply from this Directorate, be filed the appeal nearly two months after this communication, and, therefore, his appeal was within time. As to the merits of the case, be contends that, in fact his superiors got annoyed with him when he protested against the imposition of fine of Rs. 1 on him, and it was for this reason that they spoiled his record. He submits that he was not at all inefficient in his work although he had a difficult assignment which involved dealing with dishonest people and thieves.
5. We regret there is no merit in these submissions. It is not the case of the petitioner that his appeal before the Director of N. W. R. was in the nature of competent proceedings under the relevant service rules and, accord ingly, limitation could not commence from the date of the decision of the Directorate. In terms of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act the appeal bad to be filed within 90 days of the establishment of the Tribunal, which period expired on the 23rd of May, 1974. Such being the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the appeal filed by the petitioner was barred by time.
6. In any case, the Tribunal has examined the matter on merits, and found that the petitioner's record justified the order of compulsory retirement. The submissions made by the petitioner in regard to the adverse entries contained in his record these cannot negative their effect. The fact reaming that his record does contain adverse entries, which could be acted upon by the competent authority.
7. In the circumstances, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
8. Petition dismissed.