Pakistan Case Law
1991 SCMR 1765

WAPDA vs MUHAMMAD KHALID

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1991 SCMR 1765
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 515-R of 1989 Appeal No. 140(L) of 1985
Date1990-02-20
Judge(s)Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa
Authored byRustam S. Sidhwa
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal was filed by WAPDA against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that set aside the removal of the respondent, Muhammad Khalid, and imposed a lesser penalty. The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's decision on two primary grounds: first, that the Tribunal erred by condoning the delay in filing the appeal without a formal application; and second, that the Tribunal misread evidence regarding the date the respondent received the departmental dismissal order. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and noted the petitioner's failure to produce proof of service, specifically admitting that the envelope containing the dismissal order was returned unserved but was not presented to the Tribunal. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's acceptance of the respondent's timeline regarding receipt of the order. Regarding the procedural objection about the lack of a formal condonation application, the Court held that the matter fell within the Tribunal's discretion and declined to interfere on a technicality. Finding no merit in the contentions, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a tribunal's finding on the date of receipt of a departmental order be challenged if the petitioner fails to produce evidence of service?
  • Is the absence of a formal application for condonation of delay fatal to an appeal if the tribunal exercises its discretion to condone it?
  • Does the failure to produce an unserved envelope in evidence justify a tribunal's acceptance of a respondent's claim regarding the date of receipt of a dismissal order?
service appealcondonation of delaydepartmental orderservice of noticeFederal Service Tribunalleave to appealprocedural technicality

ORDER

RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.-This is a petition by WAPDA, Lahore seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 21-6-1989 accepting the appeal of Muhammad Khalid, respondent, and setting aside his removal and ordering lesser punishment.

2. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the Tribunal legally erred in condoning the delay in the filing of the appeal even, though the respondent had not made any application for condonation of delay. It is further contended that the order of Departmental Authority dated 29-4- 1985 dismissing the respondent's appeal was sent by registered post to the respondent, which should have been received in the normal course within a day or so and that the allegation of the respondent that he had received the said order on 7-5-1985, which was found to be correct by the Tribunal, was based on a misreading of the evidence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show what evidence was produced by the petitioner before the Tribunal in support of its plea that the decision of the Superintending Engineer dated 29-4-1985 was sent to the respondent by registered post and, if so, on what date the communication was delivered to the respondent or returned unserved. The learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the envelope containing the decision was received back unserved, but the same was not produced before the Tribunal. If this be so, the Tribunal was not in error in accepting the version of the respondent that he had received communication of the dismissal order on 7-5-1985 and had thus preferred his appeal within the statutory period of 30 days. As regards the question that no application for condonation of delay had been filed by the respondent, the matter being one of discretion, the finding of the Tribunal cannot be set aside on a technicality alone. Taking all circumstances into consideration we do not see any good ground for granting leave. This petition is dismissed.

Cited by 13 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.