AMIR NAWAB vs REGIONAL MANAGER, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BAN1K OF PAKISTAN, MARDAN and 4 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petitions challenging disciplinary penalties imposed by the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan. The petitioner, an employee of the bank, was penalized with a reduction in pay scale following inquiries into allegations of gross negligence, inefficiency, and embezzlement. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly dismissed the constitutional petitions on the grounds of laches, given the four-year delay in filing. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to provide plausible or satisfactory explanations for the inordinate delay. The Court rejected the petitioner's arguments that departmental promises or the lack of a specific limitation period in constitutional jurisdiction justified the delay, characterizing the excuses as afterthoughts. The Court affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to excuse unexplained, inordinate delay, especially when the petitioner's conduct is questionable. The principle laid down is that a petitioner seeking constitutional relief must provide reasonable and satisfactory grounds to explain any significant delay, and mere assertions of a continuing cause of action or departmental promises do not automatically condone laches.
- Can a petitioner invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court after an inordinate delay of four years without providing satisfactory grounds for such delay?
- Does the absence of a specific period of limitation for filing constitutional petitions automatically entitle a petitioner to condonation of laches?
- Are departmental promises of relief sufficient grounds to condone a significant delay in filing a constitutional petition?
' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 30th of November, 1989, Regional Manager, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Mardan issued Memorandum No,ROM:5(23)/89/1739 disclosing that the petitioner (Amir Nawab), Abdul Hameed and Iftikhar Ullah,. The respondents Nos.4 and 5 were guilty of gross negligence, inefficiency, embezzlement, deterioration of Bank's image and had also tampered with the official record. Muhammad Rafiq, Regional Operation Officer, Mardan was appointed to, conduct inquiry into the allegations. Stated above. After the positive result of the inquiry, the petitioner was imposed penalty of reduction of one stage' lower in his time scale of pay.
Similarly, vide another memorandum, he was found to have embezzled Rs,5,639 and in consequence, vide Office Mememoranduin No ROM(23)/90/1997/2004, dated 20th of November, 1990, penalty of reduction of one stage lower in his time scale of pay was imposed upon him. These orders were challenged by the petitioner by filing two Constitution petitions. A learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court vide separate judgment dated 31st of May, 1995 dismissed the petitions. These petitions for leave to appeal have been instituted to call in question the judgment of the High Court.
2. Learned counsel submits that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner.. It is added that respondent No,1, Regional Manager was not competent to impose penalty upon the petitioner in the given situation.
3. We have not been persuaded to hear the case on merits inasmuch as after about four years, these writ petitions were instituted by the petitioner in the High Court. Applications to condone delay and laches in filing the Constitution petitions were filed on 3-10-1994. The grounds taken therein were as follows:--
(a) That the petitioner had a very good case and it was promised by the Department that the penalty imposed Would be set aside after rejection of appeal of the applicant 'but when the said promise was turned down the applicant is bringing the attached writ petition and the delay is simply by reason of the promise of the respondent department.
(b) That the applicant has a very good prima facie case and delay if any, in filing such like cases is condonable as there is no any period of limitation in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Hon' ble Court.
(c) That the cause of action still continues and the applicant can be granted the relief prayed for in the writ petition.
(d) That it will be in the interest of justice if the applicant is condoned delay/laches in filing the attached writ petition."
The abovementioned grounds do not satisfy us to show that they were plausible, satisfactory or reasonable to relax such an inordinate delay of four years in filing the petitions in High Court. The grounds are, undoubtedly, afterthought and fake just to defeat the ends of law. It was the duty of the petitioner to explain the delay with good grounds which he failed to advance. We hold the view that lenient view was taken by the competent Authority against the petitioner while imposing penalty although he was found to have misappropriated the money of the bank. The conduct of the petitioner in bringing these belated petitions is also doubtful on face of record. We, therefore, dismiss both the petitions by refusing leave to appeal.