Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

1993 P L C (C

1993 P L C (C.S.) 1430

[Federal service Tribunal]

Before Rana Rifat Saeed and Misbah Ullah Khan, Members

AMIR AFZAL

Versus

QUARTER MASTER‑GENERAL, PAKISTAN ARMY QMG'S BRANCH, GHQ, RAWALPINDI and others

Appeal No. 78(R) of 1993, decided on 12th July, 1993.

Civil service‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Employee who had challenged his dismissal from service, neither could produce a copy of his appointment letter or terms and conditions of his service‑‑‑Employee also could not establish that Department in which he was workings was a Government Department and that he was a civil servant‑‑‑Evidence on record had fully established that employee was not . a civil servant‑‑‑Appeal filed by employee against ‑ his dismissal, which otherwise was time‑barred, was dismissed.

Sardar M. Ghazi for Appellant.

M. Idrees, Head Superintendent, D.R. for Respondents.

Date of hearing‑ 12th July, L993.

JUDGMENT

RANA RIFAT SAEED (MEMBER): Appeal No. 466(R) of 1992 had been withdrawn by, the appellant on 9‑2‑1993 to await for the final order against his representation which he had submitted to the. Departmental authorities on 28‑7‑1992. The learned counsel had stated that he had received the final order from the respondent Department rejecting his representation vide letter dated 25‑2‑1993 which reads as under:‑

"General Headquarters

QMG's Branch (Q‑Coord),

Rawalpindi

Tel:GHQ/31126

No.184/04/R/CSD/Q‑Coord

25th February, 1993.

To

PF‑2150 SGM

Ch. Amir Afzal, Ex‑Manager c/o Abid Brothers Contractor (Pvt.) Ltd., B/9 Nasir Mansion, Khyber Bazar, Railway Road No.2, P.O.Box No.389, Peshawar.

Copy to: Head Office CSD, Rawalpindi

Subed: Appeal Against Dismissal from CSD Service

Your letter, dated 7th February, 1993 refers.

Your appeal dated 23rd September, 1992 for reinstatement in CSD service was considered sympathetically by the Chairman BOC (:SD and the same was rejected by him. You were informed vide our Letter No. 184/03/R/CSD/Q‑Coord, dated 14th October, 1992 accordingly. (Sd.) Lt.‑Col. Secretary, Board of Control CSD for Quartermaster‑General (Muhammad Bakhsh)"

This showed that the respondent Department had already rejected his appeal. vide their letter dated 14‑10‑1992 which according to the appellant's learned counsel had not been received by him. Appellant's earlier appeal dated 28‑7‑1992 had already been rejected by the Deptt. vide letter dated 15‑8‑1992 which is reproduced below‑

"Head' Office, CSD Post Box No‑1039 Rawalpindi Tel No: 30808 PA/552/SLK/A‑5 15th August 1992.

To:

PF‑2150 SGM Ch. Amir Afzal . C/o HO, CSD (HP Sec) Rawalpindi

Subject: Appeal against Dismissal PF02150 SGM Ch. Amir Afzal

This is with reference to your appeal, dated 28th July, 1992. Due consideration has been given, to your request but it is regretted that the same cannot be acceded to.

(Sd.) Lt: Col. Director Personnel and Admn, CSD (M. Riaz ud Din)."

2. The learned counsel had been asked to produce the letter of appointment of the appellant and terms and conditions of his service in the C.S.D., G.H.Q. and he could not show or produce the letter of appointment. Upon an other observation whether the appellant was a civil servant, the learned counsel had produced a photostat copy of the C.S.D. Manual (Exhibit `A'), wherein it had been mentioned that the C.S.D's. a Non‑Government Commercial Concern under the M/o Defence. for welfare of Armed Forces Personnel.. This was, therefore, doubtful whether the appellant was a Government servant or even a civil servant. The learned counsel could not establish the status of the appellant as a civil servant.

3. Departmental representative had stated that according to para 3 of the dismissal order dated 20‑7‑1992, it had been indicated that the appellant had been dismissal from service w.e.f. 20‑7‑1992 under Rule 85 d(2) and e(4) of the C.S.D. Manual of Instructions and Procedure, 1965. This also showed that dismissal of the appellant had not taken place under the E&D Rules and as such the appellant was not a civil servant.

4. It further transpired that the final orders had been passed by the respondent Department on 15‑8‑1992 and 14‑10‑1992, whereas the ‑appellant submitted the instant appeal on 21‑3‑1993 and which was evidently hit by limitation.

5. Under these circumstances and after hearing the parties, we conclude as under:‑‑

(a) Appeal is hit by limitation factor.

(b) Appellant's learned counsel has neither been able to produce a copy of appointment letter or terms and conditions of his service nor prove whether C.S.D. is a Government Deptt and its employees are civil servants under meanings of Civil Servants Act, 1973.

(c) Department has followed C.S.D. Manual of Instructions and Procedure, 1965 and not the Efficiency and Disciplines Rules, 1973 made under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, while dismissing the appellant.

(d) So, (b) and (c) are enough proof that the appellant is not a civil servant.

(e) Accordingly the appeal is not maintainable, is misconceived and incompetent.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed under these terms.

6. No order as to costs.

H.B.T./868/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from FEDERAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant