GULAB ALI SAHITO vs DIRECTORGENERAL INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, ISLAMABAD
The petitioner, a Deputy Director in the Intelligence Bureau, challenged an order directing him to pay vehicle repair charges and withholding his promotion for three years following an official jeep accident. His service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal was dismissed as time-barred. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined the dates of communication of the final order and the filing of the appeal. The Court held that the appeal was filed within the prescribed limitation period of thirty days from the date of communication of the order. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and remanded the matter to the Federal Service Tribunal for a decision on merits, establishing that limitation for filing a service appeal runs from the date of communication of the final order rather than its date of issuance.
- Whether the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal runs from the date of the order or the date of its communication to the aggrieved civil servant?
- Can an appellate tribunal dismiss a service appeal as time-barred when the appeal is filed within thirty days of the communication of the impugned order?
ORDER
' RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.---The petitioner is working as Deputy Director Intelligence Bureau. He was on an official tour in an official jeep when he met with an accident. It was considered misconduct on his part and a show-cause notice was accordingly issued to him. Ultimately, vide order dated 5-7- 1997, he was directed to pay a sum of Rs,1,53,000 as repair charges of the vehicle and his promotion was also withheld for three years. Being aggrieved, he assailed the order before the Federal Service Tribunal, but his appeal was dismissed on the sole ground that the same was barred by time.
2. We have heard the learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Attorney-General, and gone through the file.
3. It seems that the final order was passed on 5-7-1997 and communicated to the petitioner on 30- 9-1999. He preferred appeal before the Tribunal on 28-10-1999, which was within 30 days. In the circumstances, we are convinced that the appeal before the Tribunal was within time. Since the appeal was not decided on merits, we convert this petition into an appeal and allow the same with direction to the Tribunal to decide it on merits.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through its Chairman Lahore 2010 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 120