Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GULAB ALI SAHITO VS Respondent: DIRECTOR?GENERAL INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, ISLAMABAD
2001 P L C (C
2001 P L C (C.S.) 990
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Rashid Aziz Khan, Hamid Ali Mirza and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ
GULAB ALI SAHITO
versus
DIRECTOR-GENERAL INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, ISLAMABAD and 2 others
Civil Petition No. 464-K of 2000, decided on 6th December, 2000.
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 22-5-2000 passed by Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 1060-K of 1999).
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---
----S. 4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212---Terms and conditions of service---Appeal before Service Tribunal---Limitation---Final order was passed on 5-7-1997 and communicated to the civil servant on 30-9-1999-- Appeal before Service Tribunal was preferred on 28-10-1999---Validity-- Such appeal was within 30 days and the same was within time---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and the same was allowed---Case was remanded to the Service Tribunal for decision on merits.
Ahmadullah Faruqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. S. Zaki Muhammad, Deputy Attorney-General for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 6th December, 2000.
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.
Q.M.H./M.A.K./G-55/S. Appeal allowed.