MUHAMMAD YOUNIS vs THE CHAIRMAN, WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT
This matter concerns four petitions for special leave to appeal against orders of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' service appeals on the ground of limitation. The petitioners, formerly meter readers, were dismissed from service following allegations of electricity theft. After unsuccessful attempts to seek redress through the Labour Court and initial departmental appeals, they approached the Superintending Engineer, who eventually rejected their appeals on merits without addressing the issue of limitation. Subsequently, the Federal Service Tribunal dismissed their appeals, holding that the departmental appeals were time-barred, despite the departmental authority not having raised or decided the issue of limitation. The core legal question is whether the Federal Service Tribunal possesses the authority to independently invoke the bar of limitation when the departmental appellate authority has not based its decision on that ground. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, indicating that the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals on limitation grounds, when the departmental authority had not done so, requires further judicial consideration.
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal dismiss a service appeal on the ground of limitation if the departmental appellate authority did not base its decision on that ground?
- Does an order by a departmental authority rejecting an appeal on merits provide a fresh cause of action for a service appeal?
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--These are four petitions for special leave to appeal from the orders dated 9- 9-1982 of the Federal Service Tribunal.
2. The petitioners were meter readers working under the Executive Engineer (E), Sahiwal. There were allegations against them that they were a party to the theft of electric energy. Departmental proceedings were initiated against them and as a result thereof they were dismissed from service.
They filed appeals before the Executive Engineer but before they could receive a reply from him they challenged the orders of their dismissal from service before the Labour Court. The Labour Court dismissed their petitions for want of jurisdiction. The Executive Engineer returned the appeals on the ground that they lay before the Superintending Engineer. They then lodged the appeals before the Superintending Engineer, who kept the appeals pending for a long time. The petitioner then filed appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed them on the ground of limitation. Later, by identically worded orders, the Superintending Engineer dismissed the appeals.
His order reads as follows:-- "Your appeal has been considered for decision in this office and found unsatisfactory, hence the same is hereby rejected."
The petitioners then again filed appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal from the order of the Superintending Engineer. The departmental representative objected to the competency of the appeals on the plea of res-judicata. The Tribunal rejected this plea and held that the order of the Superintending Engineer gave a fresh cause of action to the petitioners to come to the Tribunal.
However, it dismissed the appeals on the ground that the petitioners' appeals before the Superintending Engineer were barred by time and that there was no justification for the condo nation of the delay. The petitioners have now sought leave to appeal from the orders of the Federal Service Tribubal.
3. It is to be noticed that the Superintending Engineer had not dismissed the appeals of the petitioners on the ground of limitation. The question for consideration is whether the Federal Service Tribunal could on its own take up the bar of limitation when the departmental appellate authority had not chosen to base its orders on this ground. We would accordingly grant leave to appeal to the petitioners.
Cited by 4 cases
- MUHAMMAD IDREES Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD 1993 PLC(CS) 123
- ANJUMAN JAMIA TAUHEEDIA (REGD.), SHEIKHUPURA through President and another vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER_DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHEIKHUPURA and another 1990 MLD 1468
- RAJJAN And Others vs NOOR MUHAMMAD And Other 1989 MLD 3526
- BASHIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD FAROOQ And 15 Other 1989 MLD 433