MUHAMMAD AYUB vs INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and another
This matter arises from a petition for restoration of a dismissed civil petition and an underlying challenge concerning the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service and failed to file a departmental appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, delaying it for over a year and a half. The sole explanation offered for the substantial delay was the petitioner's apprehension that no relief would be granted by the appellate authority, specifically the Inspector-General of Police under whose tenure the retirement order was passed, until that official was transferred. The Service Tribunal rejected this explanation as unsatisfactory and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of subjective apprehensions regarding bias or lack of relief as a valid ground for condoning prolonged delay in filing departmental remedies. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Service Tribunal, holding that subjective expectations or personal apprehensions regarding an authority's attitude do not constitute a sufficient or lawful excuse for failing to pursue statutory remedies within the stipulated limitation period.
- Does an apprehension that an appellate authority will not grant relief constitute a sufficient ground for condoning delay in filing a departmental appeal?
- Can failure to challenge a compulsory retirement order within the prescribed limitation period result in the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred?
- Whether subjective expectations regarding the attitude of an administrative authority justify bypassing statutory limitation rules?
ORDER
1. ' C.M.P.No, 8-R of 1987 ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--For the reasons given in the petition for restoration, the order dated 19-12- 1987 dismissing the netition for non-prosecution is recalled and the petition restored to its original number. Let the same be heard today.
2. ' C. P. No,164-R of 1987 ' The petitioner was compulsorily retired by order dated 2-1-1985 but he did not challenge the same by a departmental appeal, till 3-9-1986, although he could file it only by 1-2-1985. Hence the appeal was dismissed as barred by time. The reason given for filing the appeal with so much delay was that the petitioner did not think that any useful purpose would be served by filing an appeal so long as the appellate authority (I.G.Police) during whose period he was compulsorily retired was not transferred as he did not expect any relief from the said Inspector-General of Police.
3. This explanation was not considered to be satisfactory by the Service Tribunal and the appeal before it was dismissed on the short ground that no fault could be found in the order of the appellate authority.
4. ' We entirely agree with the above view of the Service Tribunal. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.