INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BALUCHISTAN vs JAWAD HAIDER And Another

ORDER

S.A. NUSRAT, J.--The respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was appointed as a Motor Vehicle Examiner on 5-7-1975. He was placed under suspension on 30-4-1977 and was later served with a show-cause notice dated 4-5-1977 apprising him of the charges. After receipt of his reply, necessary inquiry was conducted in the matter as per rules. On such inquiry, he was found guilty of corrupt practice and was dismissed from service on 29-6-1977. He preferred a departmental appeal on 7-7-1977 from the order of his dismissal dated 29-6-1977. The same was rejected by order dated 2-8-1977. The respondent, however, filed another appeal/ representation before the Government of Baluchistan directly on 18-8-1977, which too was rejected by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 10-10-1980. The respondent instead of approaching the respondent No.2 for a copy of the decision, made an application to the Inspector-General of Police, Quetta, seeking information with regard to any decision, if taken, by the Government of Baluchistan.

In the circumstances, a letter dated 24-10-1982, was sent to the respondent by the petitioner informing him that his representation was rejected by the Government of Baluchistan. The respondent thereupon filed appeal before the Service Tribunal against the order of his dismissal dated 29-6-1977. This appeal was filed on 24-11-1982. An objection raised on behalf of the petitioner that the appeal of the respondent was time-barred, was overruled by the learned Service Tribunal.

2. In the background of the above facts, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent was fully aware of the order of rejection of his departmental appeal dated 2- 8-1977 and in the circumstances the appeal filed before the Service Tribunal on 24-11-1982 was clearly time-barred. It was submitted that the respondent could not take advantage of the letter of the petitioner dated 24-10-1982 whereby he was informed about the rejection of his representation to the Provincial Government.

3. The above contentions require examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted to examine the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal on the question of limitation. The appeal will be heard on the same record.

According to the office report, this petition is barred by 11 days. Necessary explanation has been furnished on behalf of the petitioner vide application dated 11-4-1987. The question with regard to the petition being barred by time is, however, left open for consideration at the hearing of the appeal.