GULAB ALI SAHITO vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, ISLAMABAD
The petitioner, a Deputy Director in the Intelligence Bureau, met with an accident while on an official tour in an official jeep. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him for misconduct, resulting in an order dated 5 July 1997 directing him to pay repair charges and withholding his promotion for three years. His departmental appeal having failed, he approached the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal solely on the ground of being time-barred. Aggrieved, he filed a petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that although the final order was passed on 5 July 1997, it was only communicated to the petitioner on 30 September 1999, and his appeal before the Tribunal was filed on 28 October 1999, well within the prescribed limitation period of thirty days. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and remanded the matter back to the Federal Service Tribunal to decide the case on merits.
- Whether an appeal filed before the Federal Service Tribunal within thirty days of the communication of the departmental order is within time?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal dismiss a service appeal as time-barred when the final order was communicated to the aggrieved civil servant at a much later date than its issuance?
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 promotions 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 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. 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.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD SALIM PIRWANI vs POSTMASTER GENERAL and another 2007 PLC (C.S.) 1327
- Muhammad Sohail vs Divisional Superintendant, Pakistan Railways, Quetta 2015 C.L.R. 984
- ASIF vs WORKS MANAGER (DIESEL SHED), PAKISTAN RAILWAY, KARACHI CANTT. 2016 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 19