IQBAL MASIH vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL and 2 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal for non-prosecution and the subsequent dismissal of his restoration application by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The dismissal occurred due to the petitioner's failure to deposit the requisite security in accordance with the rules and practice of the Tribunal, coupled with a lack of appearance. The core legal question concerns whether the Service Tribunal was legally bound to exercise its discretion in favor of granting time for depositing security or restoring the appeal, and whether the impugned orders violated any governing rules. The Supreme Court held that the decision to dismiss for non-prosecution and the refusal to grant an extension of time fall within the discretionary jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and no rule was shown to support the petitioner's claim of entitlement. Furthermore, upon examining the merits of the petitioner's dismissal for misconduct, the Court found no force therein. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal is bound to exercise its discretion in favor of restoring an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Does a failure to deposit security in accordance with the rules justify the dismissal of a service appeal?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary orders of the Service Tribunal regarding the grant of extension of time for depositing security?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought; against the dismissal by the Punjab Service Tribunal, of petitioner's Service Appeal for non-prosecution and the dismissal of his restoration application.
2. ' The dismissal of the appeal was necessitated on account of non-prosecution by the petitioner of his appeal; in his failure to deposit the security in accordance with the rules and practice of the Tribunal.
3. ' When questioned; whether, the impugned orders passed by the Service Tribunal are against any rule or in other words; whether, any rule supports the petitioner's case learned counsel failed to make any reference to any such rule--instead he relied upon Mehr Muhammad Nawaz and 11 others v. Government of the Punjab and others 1977 PLC (C.S.T.) 165 to contend that the Service Tribunal had in similar circumstances, chosen not to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
4. ' While dealing with the question of deposit of security the Tribunal observed as follows:-- "So far as the last objection based on the failure to deposit the security was concerned, the same is equally devoid of any force. The provisions of rule 11(3) which enable the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal in a case of non-compliance with the orders of Registrar, have not been shown to be attracted to the facts before us. The case of the appellants is that in most of the cases the security has been deposited. In any case we can ourselves allow the appellants to deposit the same and we have directed them to deposit the same within a fortnight from the date of the objection."
5. ' The aforequoted observations relate to the appreciation of conduct of a party before the Tribunal, vis-a-vis, the penalty of dismissal of a matter for non-prosecution. The learned Members of the Tribunal seem to have exercised their discretion in the favour of the appellants before them.
6. ' In this case also if the Tribunal would have chosen to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner this Court might not have disturbed the exercise of that discretion on the asking of the other party. It is not the case of the learned counsel that the requirements of rule have been satisfied by the petitioner in this case.
7. The grievance that the petitioner had also asked for extension of time for deposit of the security but without any success, is also of no avail to the petitioner; because, the same would fall within the same discretionary jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Besides we having questioned the learned counsel about the merits of the petitioner's case against orders of his dismissal for misconduct, have not been able to find any force in his case on merits.
8. ' Accordingly in the light of what has been stated above, leave to appeal is refused, as there is no case on merits either.