' QAZI. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, MEMBER.---Briefly the facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant was appointed in Pakistan Railways in September, 1963 as a worker in Workshop Establishment. Subsequently, while he was working as General Foreman in Diesel Shop, Unit of Workshop Establishment of Pakistan Railways at Karachi Cantt., a charge-sheet, dated 16-3-1989 was issued to him along with statement of allegations containing following allegation:--
(1) While working as Loco Foreman at K.D.A. Shed you failed to perform your legitimate duties entrusted to you in respect of para.1(e) and Chapter 15 of Mechanical Manual pertaining issue of (HSD Oil) and maintaining the correct fuel accountal.
(2) On checking 11 (eleven) months fuel accountal/record i,e, from 25-2-1984 to 31-12-1984-litres HSD Oil amounting to Rs,6,02,915.
(3) You also failed to carry out correct quarterly survey of HSD Oil kept under your control thus, violated para.29(b) of Chapter 3 of Mechanical Manual."
' He replied the charge-sheet, whereafter no action was taken against him but after about six years a letter of explanation dated 18-2-1995 (about alleged "misappropriation of 144584 liters of high speed diesel oil, valued at Rs,6,02,915 between 25-2-1984 and 31-12-1984") was issued to him against which he approached the Labour Court where stay was granted to him, but after insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 his stay application was abated as per order, dated 6-8-1997 of the Labour Court. He challenged the said order of Labour Court before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, but the same also abated vide decision dated 26-9-1998 of the Labour Appellate Tribunal whereafter the appellant filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 12-11-1998 along with an application for condonation of the delay in filing of appeal.
2. The appeal was admitted for hearing on 12-4-1999 subject to all just exceptions.
3. Notice of the appeal was served upon the respondents and they filed parawise comments stating that a show-cause notice dated 16-3-1989 (actually a charge-sheet) was issued to the appellant. On receipt of reply thereof, a departmental inquiry by an Inquiry Committee comprising Assistant Mechanical Engineer Karachi/Assistant Personnel Officer-II and Assistant Accounts Officer, Karachi, was conducted wherein the appellant was found responsible for misappropriation of fuel oil, hence a show-cause notice (letter of explanation) mentioned above was issued to him.
The written comments do not show further action, if any was taken against the appellant.
4. This old appeal lingered on for one reason or the other, on the three last dates of hearing viz. 21- 1-2006, 30-5-2006 and 19-7-2006, the learned counsel for the appellant was not present. On the last date of hearing learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution or his arguments be heard and the appeal be decided ex parte. Since the matter is very old one, we did not consider it appropriate to dismiss it in default and have preferred to decide it on merit.
5. The facts of the case of both the parties extensively reproduced above need not be repeated again. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the appeal was not maintainable as no action had been taken against the appellant till then; further that the appellant having joined the service in September, 1963 must have retired by now or must be nearing retirement, as such, the appellant did not appear interested in pursuing his appeal. The learned counsel argued that disciplinary proceedings in the shape of charge-sheet/show-cause notice could not be stifled..
Thus, charge-sheet and show-cause notice as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Yar Buttar and 4 others v. Board of Governors, Overseas Pakistan Foundation, Islamabad 1999 SCMR 819 did not come within the purview of final order or order which could be challenged before the Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973. The learned counsel further argued that the appellant was admittedly a worker working in a factory hence his appeal stood abated in view of the recent Full Court judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court regarding section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 in C.A. No,792-816 of 2005 etc. Dated 27-6- 2006 (Muhammad Mubeenus Salam v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan and others). He therefore urged that the appeal be dismissed.
6. We have carefully considered the above arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the authority cited at the bar. Without any hesitation we agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal is not maintainable, for the above mentioned reasons pressed into service by him. Relevant portion of the authority cited by the learned counsel is reproduced as under:-- 1999 SCMR 819 "The omission of the word "final" from section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act does not enlarge the scope of the appeal as envisaged by section 4 of the Act.- ' To sum up an appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act is maintainable only when the question relates to enforcement of terms and conditions of service of an employee as envisaged by the Service Tribunals Act---In our view, the Tribunal rightly observed that if in the light of the amendment in section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, appeals were maintainable against all the above noted orders, (i,e, charge-sheet, show-cause notice etc.) then it would be an endless inquiry and no inquiry can reach its logical conclusion. In this behalf, it may be stated here that while interpreting a provision of statute or rules, such interpretation is not to be placed, which would render the object of the statute or rules as futile or which in other words would frustrate the very object of the statute or the rules."
2005 PLC (C.S.) 116 "Civil servant would not have any cause of action to challenge a show-cause notice and inquiry proceedings initiated pursuant to such show-cause notice."
7. The above authorities squarely apply to the present appeal. In view of these authorities we have arrived at an unflinching conclusion that the appeal is not maintainable. Additionally we are afraid that the appellant has been able to give any cogent reason in application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Section 2-A was added in Service Tribunals Act, 1973 vide amendment dated 10-6-1997, therefore, there was no justification for the appellant to have continued the proceedings against the respondent before a legal forum other than the Service Tribunal. On the other hand the appeal also appears to have been filed before this Tribunal with an unexplained delay of about 16 days.
8. For all the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in this appeal as no action has been taken against the appellant, pursuant to the show-cause notice/charge-sheet, or letter of explanation. It is settled that disciplinary proceedings cannot be stifled before conclusion thereof.
We, therefore, dismiss it with no order as to costs.
9. Copies of this judgment be sent to the parties under registered cover and to the relevant quarters as per Rules 21 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974.