' This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, dated 7- 4-2004, whereby while allowing the appeal of respondent the penalty imposed upon him vide Notification No,Works/1552-60/2000 dated 1-3-2000 was set aside.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that the respondent was serving as S.D.O. In Public Works Department Building Division, Muzaffarabad when through notification dated 28-3-1998 approval was accorded by the Government for initiating proceedings against him and some others under the provisions of the AJ&K Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1977. In furtherance to said notification, the respondent was issued a charge-sheet and an Inquiry Officer was also appointed, who conducted inquiry against the accused civil servants. The authority ultimately awarded the present respondent penalty of recovery of half amount allegedly misappropriated by him and a minor penalty of stoppage of two annual increments. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent availed the appellate jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal on 29-5-2000. The Service Tribunal after taking necessary proceedings ultimately allowed the appeal of respondent vide judgment dated 7-4- 2004 and the punishment awarded to him vide Notification No,Works/1552-60/2000 dated 1-3- 2000 was set aside to the extent of major penalty i,e, recovery of half amount allegedly misappropriated by him. This judgment has been assailed through the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. It has been brought to my notice by the office that the instant petition for leave to appeal has not been properly constituted. The same has been filed on behalf of Azad Government through Chief Secretary, Works AJ&K Government, and Chief Engineer P.W.D. Building Division, whereas the copies of the relevant documents appended with the petition have been obtained by some Deputy Director Stores through Sakhawat Ali, Perokar of P.W.D. When this objection was put to the learned counsel for the petitioners, he argued that it is not possible for the Secretary to obtain copies himself. The Deputy Director Stores therefore, rightly obtained copies through Sakhawat Ali, Perokar of P.W.D. 'According to him, the petition for leave to appeal has been properly filed before this Court.
According to the learned counsel the previous judgments of this Court on the aforesaid point titled State v. Naseer Ahmed and another 2004 SCR 104; Azad Government and another v. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi 2002 SCR 302 and Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government v. Habibullah Lone PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 13 are not applicable in this case and even in his wisdom the law has not been properly laid down in these authorities.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and in the light of objection raised by the, office looked into the record made available by the petitioners with their petition for leave to appeal. In past we have repeatedly laid down that the petitioner who wants to avail the right of appeal should obtain the relevant copies in his own name either personally or through his recognized attorney or agent who may be even his Advocate. In this connection Order XIII, rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978, is clear whereby the petitioner is required to file four copies of his petition for leave to appeal accompanied by the impugned judgment recorded against him by the Court below and copies of other necessary documents. The plain reading of the said rule shows that the petitioner either himself or through his recognized attorney/agent, who may be even an Advocate if he is duly appointed prior to filing of petition for leave to appeal, may obtain the copies of relevant documents in his name through such person. While interpreting any provision of law we have repeatedly laid down that all the provisions of the Act or Rules should be taken into consideration in order to avoid any conflict in the interpretation of its provisions because the provisions of law as a whole are to be applied in a harmonious manner. Order XIII, rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978 is not couched in an ambiguous language nor any term is used in it which is ambiguous or suspect able of more than one interpretation. It provides as follows:-- "3. (1) The petitioner shall lodge at least four copies of--
(i) his petition for special leave to appeal;
(ii) the judgment and order sought to be appealed from together with grounds of appeal or application before the High Court and the order of the High Court refusing grant of certificate under section 42(11) of the Constitution, if any, one copy each of which shall be certified to be correct.
Thus, it is clear that .The petitioner who is before the Court has to obtain all the copies in his own name. However, he can avail the facility provided by law to engage some attorney or agent for doing the needful. In a case reported as Reference No,1 of 1997 by President, AJ&K PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 37 it was laid down as follows:- ' .This is an elementary principle that if an Act or rule prescribes a particular method of performance of an act, the act should be performed according to that method alone or not at all."
' In a case reported as Azad Government and others v. Faqir Hussain Shah and another 2004 SCR 23 the learned late Chief Justice repeated the aforementioned principle in the following words:-- "It is a celebrated principle of law that if a thing is to be done in a particular way, it should be done in that way and manner as prescribed or should not be done at all."
5. In another case titled State v. Naseer Ahmed and another 2004 SCR 104 while drafting the judgment, the aforesaid principle was reiterated by me in the following words:- ".. This is now a universal principle of law that when any act is required to be done in a particular way it must be done according to that way or not at all."
' In the same authority I also laid down as follows:-- ' It is the requirement of rules that copies must be obtained in the name of State by a person duly authorized in this behalf. In the present case the copies have not been obtained by the Advocate- General or any other person authorized in this behalf, therefore, the mandatory provisions have not been complied with. This petition for leave to appeal, therefore, is not competent."
6. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived that as Sakhawat Ali under the private arrangement made by the Department is acting as Perokar of P.W.D., therefore, any copy obtained by him can be utilized by the Department along with the petition filed by any other officer of the Department before this Court. This argument, as said earlier, has no force because under rules the petitioner who files petition is required to file its four copies along with the mandatory documents for the adjudication of the cause before this Court through petition for leave to appeal. In the present case the petition has been filed by the Azad Government through the Chief Secretary. Copies of the impugned judgment and memo. Of writ petition have not been obtained by the Chief Secretary either personally or through his recognized attorney or agent who may be even an Advocate, if was duly appointed so prior to filing of the petition for leave to appeal.
The petition has also been filed on behalf of the Secretary and the Chief Engineer of Public Works Department. Even Sakhawat Ali, so-called Perokar, has not obtained copies of relevant documents for the petitioners which have been utilized by them in preferring the instant petition for leave to appeal before this Court. The said Perokar obtained copies for Deputy Director Stores P.W.D., therefore, such copies do not fulfil the requirement of law. In a case reported as Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government v. Habibullah Lone PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 13, an objection was raised in the following words:-- "(5) During the progress of the appeals Khawaja Muhammad Saeed, the learned counsel for the respondents, took exception to the maintainability of the petitioner for leave to appeal, inter alia, on the ground that the petition was instituted by Sardar Rafique Mehmood, Additional Advocate- General who was not authorized to act on behalf of the Government. According to the learned counsel the Vakalatnama authorizing Sardar Rafique Mehmood to institute the petition for leave to appeal was signed by Sardar Aftab Ahmed Khan, the Law Secretary of the time, without any authority as he had no directions from the Government to file any appeal or petition for leave to appeal."
' The appeal filed on the basis of Vakalatnama signed by the Law Secretary was subsequently validated by obtaining approval from the Government. Even that approval was rejected by the Supreme Court in the following words:-- "(9) Can the approval order now made by the Government validate the appeal, we may here record our appreciation for Sardar Rafique Mehmood who had very rightly conceded that the approval order referred to above would not validate his act in filing the petition for leave to appeal because after the period of limitation a right had accrued to the respondent which cannot now be snatched away from him."
' After this judgment, the Government subsequently effected amendment in the relevant law and authorized the Law Minister and in his absence the Law Secretary under certain conditions to accord sanction for filing appeals before the higher Courts on behalf of Government.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners under the mistaken belief that if the copy of relevant document is obtained by any person/ representative of the Department, that can be utilized by any other person who was party to the litigation but has not obtained the same personally to agitate the cause in appellate forum for the benefit of the Department. In a case titled Habibullah v.
Government of Punjab and others PLD 1980 Lah. 337, a decision which was required to be taken in a meeting under law, was taken by all the members through circulation of the paper. This practice was not approved by the High Court. The disapproval was recorded in the following words:-- "... It is now firmly established that when law provides doing of a particular thing in a particular way, all other modes of doing it are prohibited."
8. In a case reported as Azad Government and another v. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi 2002 SCR 302, the late Chief Justice while dismissing the petition for leave to appeal observed as follows:-- "... Rule 3 of Order XIII postulates that the petitioner shall lodge at least four copies of his petition for leave to appeal and the judgment and order sought to be appealed from together with grounds of appeal or the application before the High Court but in the instant case the Government or none of its representatives lodged their petition for leave to appeal along with the judgment sought to be appealed from as the copy of the judgment or order sought to be appealed from shows that it was obtained by one Syed Zahoor-ul-Hassan Gillani who appears to be totally alien to the proceedings in question."
9. The aforesaid view was subsequently approved by this Court in a case reported as State v.
Naseer Ahmed and another 2004 SCR 104 in the following manner:-- t< ... Under Order XIII, rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, petition for leave to appeal is required to be accompanied by the judgment and order sought to be appealed from along with the grounds of appeal before the High Court. It is the requirement of rules that copies must be obtained in the name of State by a person duly authorized in this behalf. In the present case the copies have not been obtained by the Advocate-General or any other person authorized in this behalf, therefore, the mandatory provisions have not been complied with. This petition for leave to appeal, therefore, is not competent."
10. In a recent case titled Deputy Inspector-General of Police and another v. Lal Khan Civil P.L.A.
No,87 of 2004 decided on 10-1-2005 it was observed that legally the copies of the impugned judgment should have been obtained by the petitioners in their own names either personally or through their attorney or Advocate, whereas the copies had been obtained by the P.D.S.P. Through Raja Muhammad Arif Khan. It was observed that as the copies were obtained by a stranger, therefore, the same could not be used for availing the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. The petition for leave to appeal was, therefore, dismissed.
11. In another latest case titled Secretary Home and another v. Mushtaq Ahmed Qureshi Civil P.L.A.
No,172 of 2004 decided on 10-1-2005 it was observed that the copies which were appended with the memorandum of petition for leave to appeal were obtained by a Prosecutor of the Police Department through some Muhammad Matloob, whereas under law either the petitioners should have obtained the copies in their own name or through their attorney or the Advocate duly authorized to meet the requirements of the Supreme Court Rules. It was, therefore, held that the callous attitude adopted by the petitioners was sufficient for the dismissal of their petition for leave to appeal.
12. In view of above case-law as the instant petition for leave to appeal has not been filed properly by the petitioners who have come before this Court, therefore, this petition lacking the mandatory requirements of the Supreme Court Rules is not maintainable. The same, therefore, stands dismissed.