1. ' Muhammad Javed Iqbal Kasi; Member.--Through this Review Petition No, 209/2015, filed on 29.10.2015, a prayer has been made that the judgment of the FAT, dated 14.09.2015 may be revisited and the major penalty of 'removal from service' may be converted into appropriate minor penalty with benefits of reduced pay scale.
2. ' The learned counsel for the review petitioner has stated that the judgment of the FST on the main appeal has been passed without proper perusal of evidence and record made available by the counsel for the appellant/petitioner. He has focused on Rule-9 of the Revised Leave Rules 1980, saying that the review petitioner/appellant was entitled to extension of leave, also adding that the previous record of the petitioner/appellant was unblemished. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, reported as 2006 PLC (CS) 1069.
3. ' After filing of the review petition it was fixed for hearing on 3.11.2015, and the Counsel for the review petitioner was not available and notice was issued to the respondents for submission of written reply. On 18.11.2015 again associate counsel appeared on behalf of original counsel and an adjournment was sought.
4. (The learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that it is mandatory to dispose of writ petition within 30 days.) Review petition was again fixed on 23.11.2015 and despite call till 11;30 a.m.
5. None had shown appearance on behalf of 'review petitioner, so in view of this position, MP regarding review of the aforementioned judgment was dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 19(1) of the Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974.
6. ' The learned counsel for the review petitioner through MP No, 2196/2015 requested for restoration to the review petition on the plea that he was busy before another bench of FST and taking that plea, plausible, the review petition was restored to its original position vide order, dated 16.12.2015. Later on 12.02.2016 review petition was again dismissed in default for non-appearance of the learned counsel for the review petitioner. Vide order, dated 11.03.2016 as prayed by the learned counsel for the review petitioner the review petition was restored and fixed for arguments on 25.03.2016.
7. Meanwhile the learned counsel for the review petitioner filed an application before the Hon'ble Chairman, FST for constitution of a larger bench to decide the review petition in addition to the two members Mr. Muhammad Arshad Bhatti & Mr. Muhammad Javed Iqbal Kasi, who had passed the judgment on the main appeal.
8. ' The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the entertainment of this application since there was no rule available for this purpose. The Hon'ble Chairman, vide order, dated 15.06.2016 rejected the petition of the learned counsel for the review petitioner for constitution of a larger bench, so it was again fixed before the same bench. Meanwhile review petition could not be heard due to various reasons and lastly on 08.09.2016 the proxy counsel for the review petitioner had stated that the learned counsel for the review petitioner was not available due to high blood pressure, however, in the order, a direction was given to the review petitioner as well as his counsel to appear on the next date of hearing i,e, 19.09.2016 otherwise review petition would be decided on the basis of available record. On 19.09.2016 due to lack of quorum the case could not be heard and on the said date it was fixed for 22.09.2016.
9. ' Today proxy counsel has appeared stating that the original counsel for the review petitioner is on general adjournment. After perusing the record we have found that this review petition was filed in October, 2015. It is almost one year and same could not be decided due to absence of the counsel for review petitioner or lately some other reason, so the bench decided to decide the case on the basis of available record and merits. The counsel for the respondents has made short arguments stating that disposed of review petition in 30 days is mandatory as per law and under the FST (Procedure) Rules, 1974 the presence of the petitioner as well as his counsel is required on every date of hearing while in this case the petitioner who was removed from service is allegedly sitting abroad and the bench had passed a very comprehensive judgment in the main appeal. According to him learned counsel for the review petitioner has tried to reopen the case through review petition repeating the same arguments which were already discussed in the main appeal. The learned counsel for the respondents has also read the Rule 19 of the FST rule that the restoration of the case, dismissed duo to non-prosecution / default is applicable in appeals only not in all cases while this review petition has been restored twice. Lastly he referred to Rule 4 of the FST (Amended)
10. Act, wherein the provision of review has been given under certain conditions. He has contended that the scope of the review is very limited and there should be sufficient cause for reviewing the judgment. In this behalf he relied upon PLD 1960 Dhaka 1045. The learned counsel for the respondents has referred to PLD 2010 SC 945 as well as 2009 SCMR 749 and in both these judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan it has categorically been laid down that the review cannot be treated for substitute in appeal and there is no cavil to the proposition that reversal of conclusion, earlier reached by the Court, after full consideration of the questions is not possible in the exercise of review jurisdiction. A review cannot be granted for merely re-examination of the same arguments. It is to be noted that re-arguing a case on merits as well as additional grounds is beyond the scope of the review petition. Besides that a mere desire of re-hearing of the matter cannot constitute sufficient ground for the grant of review.
11. After perusal of the available record, considering the merits of the case with cited cases by the respondents and also keeping in view the pendency of this review petition, filed in October, 2015, much beyond the mandatory period of 30 days for disposal of Review Petition, we dismiss this review petition which is also devoid of merits.