MUHAMMAD HAYAT SALEEM vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order passed by the Sindh Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner, formerly an Inspector in the Excise and Taxation Department, was dismissed from service following a conviction by a Summary Military Court in 1978. After his conviction was set aside by the Martial Law authorities in 1985, he resumed duties in 1986. Years later, challenging a final departmental order dated 17-12-1999, he approached the Service Tribunal with a delay of approximately sixty days and filed an application for condonation of delay. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine, finding the grounds for condonation unconvincing and noting that the petitioner failed to substantiate claims of delayed delivery of the impugned order. The Supreme Court considered the arguments, reviewed the record, and held that the Service Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruled the petition to be without merit, and declined leave to appeal.
- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal barred by limitation can be entertained without sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
- Can a service appeal dismissed in limine by the Service Tribunal on the ground of limitation be interfered with when the appellant fails to substantiate claims of delayed communication of the order?
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Leave is sought against the order of the Sindh Service Tribunal, at Karachi, dated 15-1-2001, passed in Appeal No, 36 of 2000.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was serving as an Inspector in Excise and Taxation Department, was booked by Anti-Corruption Department in a case, and after his conviction by the Summary Military Court he was dismissed from service on 27-11-1978.
Consequently, the petitioner's conviction was set aside by D.M.L.A. Vide Order No,AQ/KL/306/64/D, dated 29-12-1985 and he resumed his duties on 9-1-1986. Thereafter, he approached the Secretary to Government of Sindh, Excise and Taxation Department, Karachi, through an appeal, which is at pages 44-45 of the paper book, and its last paragraph reads as under:-- "The appellant under duress and coercion executed such undertaking in the terms desired by the Department. The aforesaid undertaking was given under duress as such does not constitute waiver of legal rights of the appellant to claim benefits he cannot be deprived of the same."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner time and again was required to pin-point on which date this appeal was filed and what was the result of the appeal, but he was unable to point out as to when this appeal was dismissed, even he was not in a position to point out if any order was passed on it, inasmuch as he was not able to submit the statement which, according to him; was obtained from the petitioner under duress and coercion.
4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also minutely gone through the record. It would be pertinent to refer to the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment of the Sindh. Service Tribunal, which reads as under:-- "From the perusal of the documents and Annexures supplied by him no cause of action could be worked out, besides the final order was passed in this case on 17-12-1999 and the appellant filed this appeal after about 60 days hence it was hit by section 5 of Limitation Act for which he filed a condonation application. The application was heard by us on 15-1-2000 and found that the grounds advanced by him are not convincing because he was in full knowledge of the facts.
However, he claims that the letter dated 17-12-1999 was issued and delivered to him on 18-1-2000 after delay of one month with the intention that he should not get remedy from higher judicial forum on the ground of limitation. However, when put to proof, he was unable to satisfy the Tribunal on this point. Thus, we were unable to accede to his request and admit this appeal being time- barred was dismissed in limine for the foregoing reasons."
5. The above order would show that the Service Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal, being time-barred. In our considered view, this petition is without merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed and leaves, is declined.
Leave declined.