Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: RAFI-UD-DIN VS Respondent: MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED, LAHOREHonorable Justice MOAZZAM HAYATNazeer Ahmad Quraishee
2007 PLC (C.S.) 481
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Before Muhammad Iqbal Khan and Moazzam Hayat, Members
RAFI-UD-DIN
Versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED, LAHORE and another
Appeal No.78(L)(C.E.) of 2004, decided on 25th October, 2004.
(a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---
----S.4---Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Rr.3 & 4---Appeal against dismissal from service---Limitation---Appeal was filed after about three and half years of dismissal---Appellant had submitted that he could not file appeal in Service Tribunal as he filed constitutional petition in High Court against dismissal order---Being a civil servant, appellant was required to file an appeal in Service Tribunal---Wrong judicial forum having been selected by appellant, benefit of his own negligence could not be given to him---Even constitutional petition was filed by appellant after three years of his dismissal from service and present appeal was filed after three and half years of his dismissal from service---No indulgence could be shown to the appellant, his appeal was dismissed being time-barred.
(b) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---
----Rr. 3 & 4(1)(b)(iv)---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4---Dismissal from service---Appeal---Appellant was dismissed from service after charge-sheeting him and holding inquiry against him on charge that he had appeared before Medical Board, but had not got Laboratory test---No explanation had been given by appellant as to why he did not undergo Laboratory test---Authorities not only had served appellant with a charge-sheet, but also with a final show-cause notice and also gave him an opportunity to explain his position---Entire procedure, as prescribed in Service Rules, having been followed in letter and spirit by department, no illegality was found in proceedings which resulted into appellant's dismissal from service---Appeal otherwise being time-barred, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Nazeer Ahmad Quraishee for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 25th October, 2004.
JUDGMENT
MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).---Appellant Rafi-ud-Din was a Driver in Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 3-1-2001. The legality and validity of the dismissal order has been challenged by him in his present appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record.
3. As stated above, the impugned order was passed on 3-1-2001. The departmental appeal was filed on 31-1-2001. However, the present appeal was filed on 17-7-2004, after about 3-1/2 years. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant could not file appeal in this Tribunal as he had filed a writ petition in the High Court.
Being a civil servant the appellant was required to file an appeal in this Tribunal. A wrong judicial forum was selected by him. The benefit of his own negligence cannot be given to him.
4. Even the writ petition was filed by the appellant in the year 2004. The appellant was thus, never vigilant in pursuing his grievance. His writ petition was filed after three years and the present appeal was filed after 3-1/2 years. No indulgence can be shown to him. His appeal is held to be time-barred.
5. A proper procedure had been adopted by the respondents in dispensing with the service of the appellant. He was charge-sheeted and thereafter an inquiry was held against him. The charge against him was that he had appeared before the Medical Board but had not appeared for laboratory test. No explanation has been given by the appellant as to why he did not undergo the laboratory test. The respondents had served him not only with a charge-sheet but also with a final show-cause notice giving him an opportunity to explain his position. The entire procedure, as prescribed in the service rules of respondents, was followed in letter and in spirit by the respondents. We, therefore, see no illegality in the proceedings which resulted into appellants' dismissal from service. Accordingly we find no merit in the appeal.
6. For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed in limine as time-barred and being without merit.
7. Parties be informed.
H.B.T./144/FST Appeal dismissed.