MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, N.-W.F.P., PESHAWAR and another
This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of the Chairman, N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, dismissing an application for restoration of an appeal. The petitioner's appeal before the Service Tribunal had been dismissed for non-prosecution due to the non-appearance of both the petitioner and his counsel. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for restoration along with a request for condonation of delay. The Service Tribunal dismissed the restoration application on the ground that no satisfactory explanation was provided for the absence. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the Service Tribunal erred in refusing to restore the appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for his and his counsel's absence on the scheduled date. Finding no illegality or infirmity in the Tribunal's order, and noting that the petitioner had also been removed from service following a separate inquiry, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Whether an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution by a Service Tribunal can be restored without a satisfactory explanation for non-appearance?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a Service Tribunal's discretionary order refusing to restore an appeal dismissed for default when no valid grounds are shown?
ORDER
' MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.---This petition is directed against the order dated 13-6-1994 passed by the learned Chairman, N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Service Tribunal was dismissed. On 17-6-1993 neither the petitioner appeared nor his counsel. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. On 21-9-1993 an application for restoration of the appeal was moved before the Service Tribunal alongwith second application for condoning delay. The case came up for hearing before the learned Chairman, N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal on 13-6-1994. The learned Chairman dismissed the application on the ground that satisfactory explanation to justify resotration of the appeal was not given by the petitioner.
2. We have heard the petitioner in person. He was not in position to give proper explanation for not attending the Tribunal on 17-7-1993. He also could not satisfy us as to why his counsel remained absent on the aforesaid date. We have gone through the impugned order and the daily diary maintained by the Service Tribunal. There is nothing wrong with impugned order which may require interference of this Court. Besides, it was brought to our notice that the petitioner was removed from service after due inquiry on some other charges. There is no merit in the petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. 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.