TARIQ MEHMOOD vs INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by an ex-constable against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which dismissed his service appeal in limine. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner's departmental dismissal for prolonged unauthorized absence and his appeal before the Tribunal, which was grossly time-barred by nearly two years, were sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the petition was meritless as the petitioner failed to explain each day's delay in filing the service appeal and his service record reflected numerous bad entries. The Court established the principle that a service appeal filed significantly out of time without sufficient cause explaining the daily delay cannot be entertained, and departmental concurrent findings based on unsatisfactory service records and proven unauthorized absence do not raise any substantial question of law warranting interference.
- Whether an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal filed beyond the prescribed period of thirty days without explaining each day's delay is liable to be dismissed?
- Can concurrent departmental findings regarding dismissal from service for unauthorized absence be interfered with when the service record is unsatisfactory?
- Does a service appeal raise a substantial question of law when the petitioner fails to justify prolonged absence from duty?
' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Leave to appeal is sought by petitioner-ex-Constable No.986/C against judgment, dated 1-2-1999 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, whereby his Appeal No.1862 of 1998 was dismissed in limine.
2. The background is that during petitioner's posting as Guard at State Bank of Pakistan, Rawalpindi, he absented from duty with effect from 1-4-1995 to 12-10-1995. When asked to show cause and explain his conduct, he did neither file a reply to the show-cause notice nor even bothered to appear for personal hearing before the Authority. He was dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi on 12-10-1995. His appeal and revision also met the same fate before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Rawalpindi and Inspector-General of Police, Punjab respectively on 9-5-1996 and 26-11-1996.
3. Petitioner-Tariq Mahmood's appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal after noticing that the D.I.-G.
Had noted that in his service record he had earned as many as 55 bad entries against only 1 good entry. He was also dismissed on this very charge in the year 1992 but, taking a lenient view, he was reinstated. Both, the D.I.-G. And the I.G.P. Dismissed his appeal and revision observing that his service record was totally disappointing. The Tribunal also noticed that final order in the case of the petitioner was passed on 26-11-1996 and that instead of the filing the appeal before it within a period of 30 days, the appeal was resorted to on 19-10-1998 which is grossly time-barred.
4. Mr. Ch. Muhammad Akram, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of this petition was at his lowest in pleading the case of his client on allegations that (1) his appeal before the Tribunal was beyond time by year and (2) that his past conduct was not free from taint.
5. A perusal of the available material clearly brings it to the fore that the petitioner is himself to blame for not resorting to the remedy of appeal before the Tribunal within time. Beyond pleading that absence of the petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate, no serious effort whatsoever was made to explain each day's delay. Even the overview of his service record by the D.I.-G. And the I.-G.P. Has not been shown to be without basis. Moreover, no substantial question of law whatsoever, has been made out, in these proceedings.
6. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.