Pakistan Case Law← Search
PLJ 2014 Tr.C. (Service) 62

MUHAMMAD HASHIM & 2 others vs GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, HOME &

CitationPLJ 2014 Tr.C. (Service) 62
CourtBalochistan Service Tribunal
Judge(s)Nasrullah Khan Achakzai, Shagufta Begum
ResultAppeal dismissed

Nasrullah Khan Achakzai, Chairman.--The appellants have filed this service appeal under Section 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974, with a prayer to set-aside the termination order dated 28-02-2009 and to reinstate them in service.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants were appointed in Balochistan Levies Force on 21-10-2002. The appellants were discharging their duties with the then District Coordination Officer. When on 31-10-2007, the Levies Force was merged into Police by the Government. The appellants were directed to join Police Force and to undergo the Police training.

The appellants complied with the order of respondents and joined Police training. The Police authorities have stopped the salary of appellants without Show-Cause Notice or legal proceedings there of. Once again in the month of April 2010, the Levies Force was restored and appellants had approached the authorities for their due rights but without any fruitful result. Thus, being aggrieved the appellants have filed this appeal before this Tribunal on 20-09-2012.

3. On notice, the Respondents No, 1, 2, 3, and 4 have filed their objections, wherein they stated that Appellant No, 1 had joined the Police Force and remained absent for one (1) year and two (2) months and eleven (11) days. The Appellant No, 2 Muhammad Tahir remained absent for one (1) year eight (8) months and eleven (11) days, while the Appellant No, 3 Taimor Shah remained absent for one (1) year one (1) month and two (2) days without any intimation, reason and prior permission of the authority in question. Prior to termination or dismissal Show-Cause-Notices were issued on their respective addresses. The appellants despite receiving the notices willfully avoided the reply of the said notices. As such, due to their willful absence they were dismissed from service.

The appellants did not avail any forum for redressal of their grievances.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for appellants and learned Additional Advocate General for respondents perused the record with their assistance, considered their respective contentions in the light of available record. It is an admitted position that the District Police Officer i,e, competent authority has dismissed the appellants from service on 28.02.2009 due to their willful absence from duty. The appellants have filed their applications for their reinstatement before Assistant Commissioner Muslim Bagh on 26-05-2010. Whereas, the appellants had filed their representations before the Assistant Commissioner Muslim Bagh after lapse of almost fifteen (15) months, which are barred by time, as the limitation provided under Balochistan Civil servants, Appeal Rules, 2013 especially Rule 5 that departmental appeal shall be filed A within a period of sixty (60) days. As such, on one hand departmental appeal is barred by time. On the other hand the departmental appeal dated 26-05-2010 before AC Muslim Bagh cannot be considered as a departmental appeal under Balochistan Civil Servant Appeal Rules, 2013. As the impugned dismissal order dated 28-2- 2009 was passed by DPO on 28-02-2009, while the appellate authority was Regional Police Officer/DIG Zhob at Pishin as provided under Rule 3 (b) which is reproduced here for convenience.

"Rule 3 (b). Appellate authority means the officer or authority next above the competent authority, or other authority so designated to which an appeal lies against whose order the appeal is preferred and where the order is made by the Chief Minister/Chief Executive of the Province."

5. Thus for the above legal position we are of the considered view that no departmental appeals have been filed by the appellants as contemplated under law. As such, when no departmental appeals have been filed by the appellants, the present appeal is not maintainable under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1974. Hence, from the above mentioned reasons we dismiss this appeal being not maintainable under the law referred above. With no order as to costs. File after completion be consigned to record.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search