MUHAMMAD YAHYA vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed an application for the restoration of a service appeal. The petitioner, a former police constable discharged from service for using unfair means during a training examination, had his initial appeal dismissed in default in 1998. He subsequently filed an application for restoration in 2001, approximately three years after the dismissal. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to restore the appeal given the significant delay and the petitioner's failure to provide a justifiable explanation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contention regarding the date of the hearing lacked substance, noting that he failed to file the restoration application promptly after the alleged date of hearing. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that an application for restoration of an appeal dismissed in default must be filed within a reasonable time, and an inordinate delay without a valid application for condonation or justifiable grounds warrants dismissal.
- Whether a service appeal dismissed in default can be restored after an inordinate delay of three years without a formal application for condonation of delay?
- Does a failure to provide justifiable grounds for a significant delay in filing a restoration application warrant the dismissal of such an application?
' MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 21-7- 2001 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby C.M. No,704 of 2001 for restoration of his Appeal No,3432 of 1997, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined Police Service as a Constable on 8-8-1990 at District Pakpattan. He undertook police training and while appearing in the examination, he allegedly used unfair means, as such, notice was issued to him to show-cause as to why he should not be discharged from service. In reply to the notice he stated that the copying material was thrown by somebody near him and he was not copying from the same. He was discharged from service by the Superintendent of Police Pakpattan vide his order dated 25-5-1991. He challenged the said order through Appeal No,3432 of 1997 which was dismissed in default on 29-9-1998. He preferred an application for restoration of the appeal on 28-6-2001 i,e, after the delay of 3 years which was also dismissed vide order dated 21-7-2001, impugned herein.
3. The petitioner appearing in person contended that the appeal was adjourned to 2-11-1998 but the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29-9-1998 without any notice to him.
4. We have heard the petitioner and have perused the record of the case. The contention of the petitioner that he came to the Tribunal on 2-11-1998 to pursue his appeal but he was informed that it has been dismissed on 29-9-1998 in default, has no substance. Had it been so, the petitioner would have filed the application for restoration immediately after 2-11-1998 but instead, he filed the application after the delay of 3 years without any application for condonation of delay and without showing any justifiable ground for filing the application after such an inordinate delay.
5. In the circumstances, we find no legal error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and leave refused.