MUHAMMAD HANIF BUKHARI and another vs PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN HEAD OFFICE, KARACHI and others
This matter arises from appeals directed against a consolidated judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellants' service appeals on the ground of limitation after their writ petitions abated following the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The core legal questions relate to whether the appeals preferred by the petitioners were within time and whether they were entitled to condonation of delay, particularly given an identical co-accused's case where delay was condoned. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that decisions on merits are to be encouraged over non-suiting litigants on technicalities like limitation, and that parity of treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution warrants similar relief. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal was set aside and the matters were remanded for a fresh decision on merits pursuant to powers under Article 187 of the Constitution.
- Whether appeals preferred before the Service Tribunal barred by time are entitled to condonation of delay when an identical co-accused's appeal was allowed?
- Should courts encourage decisions of cases on merits rather than non-suiting litigants for technical reasons including limitation?
- Does the principle of equality of citizens under Article 25 of the Constitution apply to service appeals involving co-accused facing identical charges?
- Section 2-A, Service Tribunals Act, 1973
- Article 25, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 187, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, J.--By this common judgment we propose to dispose of these appeals, which are directed against a consolidated judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 31.5.1999, passed in Appeals Nos, 327(R) and 340(R) of 1999, respectively.
2. The appellants herein were dismissed from service on the charges of commission of irregularities/frauds. Their review petitions before the competent authority, also failed. Their writ petitions before the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, in view of Section 2-A inserted in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, were abated on 26.3.1999. Thereafter they filed appeals before the Tribunal, which were dismissed on the point of limitation. Feeling aggrieved, they filed petitions in this Court, wherein leave to appeal was granted to consider "whether the appeals preferred by the petitioners were within time and whether under the circumstances they were entitled to condonation of delay".
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and minutely perused the material available on the record. In support of his contentions, Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned counsel for the appellants has relied on Muhammad Yaqub v. Pakistan Petroleum Limited (2000 SCM R 830), Azimullah, Ex- Inspector v. Chairman, Board of Trustees, Abadoned Properties Organization, Islamabad (2001 P.L.C.
(CS) 350) and Managing Director, SSGC Ltd. v. Ghulam Abbas (PLD 2003 S.C. 724, at 734), and National Bank of Pakistan u. Alam Hussain (C.P. No, 1759/2002). Learned counsel pointed out that in the said case respondent-Alam Hussain, Head Cashier of the National Bank of Pakistan, was also charge-sheeted along with the present appellants; the competent authority imposed penalty on Alam Hussain as well as the appellants herein, therefore, the case of the present appellants- is identical and at par with that of Alam Hussain. The appeal of Alam Hussain was allowed by the Tribunal and the delay was condoned, against which the bank filed petition before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2002 (available at pages 3-5 of paper book Bearing No, CMA No, 306/03 in C.A. No, 1298/00).
3. On the other hand, Kh. M. Farooq, learned ASC for respondents, in support of his arguments has cited Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Put.) Ltd. v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (2004 SCM R 100).
4. Keeping in view the case of N.B.P. u. Alam Hussain, referred to above and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Managing Director, SSGC Ltd., referred to above, wherein it has been held that 1 "decision of the cases on merits always to be encouraged instead of non- suiting the litigants for technical reason including on limitation", therefore the delay in the cases in hand is condoned.
5. It would be beneficial to refer here Articles 25 and 187 of the Constitution, which read as under:-- "25. Equality of Citizens.--(1) All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law.
(2)There shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex alone.
(3)Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the protection of women and children."
"187. Issue and execution of processes of Supreme Court.-- (1) Subject to clause (2) of Article 175, the Supreme Court shall have power to issue such directions, orders, or decrees as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it, including an order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person or the discovery or production of any document......
6. In the interest of justice, equity, fair play, the case law referred to above, facts and circumstances and the provisions of the Constitution, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and remand the matters to the Tribunal for afresh decision on merits without being prejudiced by its earlier judgment whereby the appeals of the appellants were dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- Mst. Maria Aziz vs Muhammad Nawaz 2021 YLR 2432, 2021 PHC 267