NAZIR AHMAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OKARA and others
The petitioner, a police constable dismissed from service for producing a tampered date of birth certificate, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner had been served with a show-cause notice, heard in person, and his departmental appeals before the Deputy Inspector-General and representation to the Inspector-General of Police were unsuccessful. The Punjab Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal as barred by limitation, declining to condone the delay for the time spent pursuing a departmental representation not recognized as a prescribed remedy for extending the limitation period. The Supreme Court examined the finality of orders under the applicable rules and held that the time for filing an appeal before the Tribunal ran from the date of the appellate order passed by the Deputy Inspector-General, which was final under the rules. Finding no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay, the Supreme Court upheld the decision and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- From which date does the period of limitation start running for filing an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules?
- Can the time spent in pursuing a departmental representation to the Inspector-General of Police be excluded for the purpose of condonation of delay before the Service Tribunal?
- Does the refusal of the Service Tribunal to condone delay suffer from legal infirmity when an appeal is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation?
- Rule 14(5), Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was a constable on the establishment of the Superintendent of Police at Okara. On the allegation that at the time of joining service he had produced a certificate in which his date of birth had been tampered with, he was served with a show-cause notice. He submitted a written reply and was also heard in person by the Superintendent of Police.
His explanation was found unsatisfactory and he was dismissed from service. He preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General which was dismissed. He made a representation to the Inspector-General of Police but this was also filed. He then preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. It was dismissed on the ground of limitation. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Under rule 14(5) the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, the order made by the Deputy Inspector-General on the appeal of the petitioner was final. Consequently, the time for filing the appeal before the Tribunal started running against him from the date the order of the Deputy Inspector-General was conveyed to him. It is not disputed that he did not prefer the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed period. However, he sought condonation for the delay by claiming allowance for the time he had spent in pursuing his representation before the Inspector- General. The learned Tribunal declined his prayer and refused to condone the delay. We do not find that the view taken by the learned Tribunal in this regard suffers from any infirmity. The petition is dismissed.