MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN vs S.S.P., MULTAN And Other
The petitioner, a police constable, sought leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed his service appeal for failure to deposit the required security within the stipulated time. The core legal question concerned whether the Service Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal when the appellant failed to comply with the direction to deposit security and did not seek an extension of time. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal was justified as the petitioner failed to satisfy the Court regarding his non-compliance with the deposit order and made no application for an extension of time. The key principle laid down is that failure to comply with procedural directions such as depositing security, without seeking an extension of time or offering a valid explanation, warrants the dismissal of the appeal.
- Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal is justified in dismissing an appeal when the appellant fails to deposit the required security within the given timeframe?
- Can an appellant who fails to deposit security within the stipulated period claim relief without filing an application for extension of time?
- Does the failure to comply with procedural orders of the Service Tribunal warrant the refusal of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J: --Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 16-8-1988, whereby his Appeal No.980 of 1986 was dismissed.
2. The petitioner being a police constable, filed a declaratory suit against his retirement from service w.e.f 21-6-1986, by the S.S.P. Multan (Respondent No. 1) in the Court of Civil Judge, Multan who returned the plaint to the petitioner for presentation to the proper forum vide his order dated 3-6- 1986. The petitioner filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Multan which was dismissed on 29-9-1986. He filed further appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. The learned Tribunal while admitting the appeal of the petitioner for regular hearing on 31-5-1988, directed him to deposit the security within 7 days which he failed to do so and his appeal was dismissed on 16- 8-1988. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the petitioner who appeared in person in support of his petition. He could not satisfy us that how he failed to make the deposit of the security when he was directed by the Tribunal to make the deposit within seven days. He has also made no application in this regard for asking extension of time for making the deposit of the security. Thus we, feel that his petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Leave is, therefore, refused. 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.