Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SOHAN LALL VS Respondent: SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
1980 P L C (C
1980 P L C (C. S.) 639
[Service Tribunal Punjab]
Present : M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman, S. Hafeezur Rehman and Zawar Hussain Malik, Members
SOHAN LALL
Versus
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Case No. 423 of 1979, decided on 29th June 1980.
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1973)‑‑‑--
-----S. 4‑Limitation‑‑Delay of 9 months after rejection of departmental appeal'‑‑‑No explanation‑Appellant erroneously seeking remedy before Labour Court but exact period of such proceedings also not indicated‑ Appeal, in circumstances, dismissed in limine as time‑barred.
JUDGMENT
M. SLAEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑‑--The appellant seeks to reverse the order dated 2‑5‑1978 passed by the Principal, Kinnaird College for ''omen, Lahore, dismissing him from service as Gate‑Keeper in the college. Also impugned is the order of the Director of Education, Lahore, dated 3‑2‑1979 rejecting his appeal. A further revision petition to the Secretary Education remains unanswered.
2. The appellant was charged with insubordination and refusal to submit to the college discipline. He declined to accept the show‑cause notice issued to him in this regard as also the suspension order. The Staff Servants Committee of the College went through the case and recommended his dismissal. The Director, Education gave the appellant a hearing when he appalled against the dismissal order but decided not to interfere in the matter.
3. The appellant was heard. His principal contention was that no proper enquiry was held and that he had been condemned unheard. It was stated on behalf of the Principal that the Staff Servants Committee, composed of five members of the staff, enquired into the charges against the appellant and recommended his dismissal. In appeal, the Director of Education gave him a proper hearing before upholding the order of the Principal.
4. Quite apart from the above, we feel that the appeal is grossly barred by time. The appeal to the Director of Education was decided on 3‑2‑1979. Thereafter, the appellant went up in revision representation to the Education Secretary. But strangely the appellant is not able to give the exact date of this revision application: On the copy of this representation appended to the grounds of appeal it is, however, noted that a 2nd reminder was made on 31‑8‑1978. In the meantime, the appellant had filed an appeal with the Director of Education, the appellate authority, on 25‑5‑1978 with reminders on later dates, and this appeal was decided against him on 3‑2‑1979. This means that the application to the Secretary was made before the decision of the Director of Education and not after it. From 3‑2‑1979, the date of rejection of the appeal, to 25‑11‑1979, when the appeal was received in this Tribunal is more than nine months. During this period the appellant also went up to the Labour Court but that was not the correct forum in his case. It has not been made clear as to how much time was consumed in these proceedings. Thus delay could not be condoned.
In view of the above facts we dismiss this appeal in limine on grounds of limitation.
Appeal dismissed.