Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, C.J.- The captioned petition for leave to appeal has been addressed against the judgment of the Forest Appellate Tribunal dated 18.11.2016.
2. The petitioners were serving as the Forest Guard and the Forester in the Forest Department, Compartment No.4 Jagran Range. According to the petitioners, respondent No.2 to 4 herein, damaged/cut three trees of Deodar on 10.12.2012. Petitioner No.1 submitted a report on 12.12.2012 to the Block Officer, Salkhala while seizing the timber and handing over the same to superdar namely Muhammad Khan s/o Shahdi Khan,r/o Palarri, District Neelum. The Block Officer Sulkhala after spot inspection made an inspection note and determined the expected value of the timber. The case was submitted to the competent forum/Forest Protection Officer Neelum, who disposed of the same vide judgment dated 08.09.2014. Respondents No.1 filed an appeal before the Forest Appellate Tribunal/ Sessions Judge Neelum. The learned Appellate Tribunal remanded the case to the Forest Protection Officer, who again disposed of the same while acquitting the accused on the basis of non-availability and contradiction of the evidence. The Forest Prosecutor against the order of the Forest Protection Officer, filed an appeal before the Forest Appellate Tribunal which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 18.11.2016 with the direction to the Forest Department to take legal action against the concerned public servants and receive the costs of the timber from the concerned persons/public servants of the department. This judgment of the Forest Appellate Tribunal is subject of the instant petition for leave to appeal.
3. Mr. Muhammad Irshad Khan, Advocate, counsel for the petitioners after narration of the necessary facts submitted that the Forest Appellate Tribunal has illegally recorded the findings in its judgment against the petitioners who were neither party nor have been heard, therefore, they are aggrieved person and have got right to challenge the impugned judgment through the instant petition for leave to appeal. He submitted that as the petitioners were not party, therefore, from the date of knowledge the petition for leave to appeal has been filed within time. He submitted that the objection regarding the certified copy of the memo of the appeal before the Forest Appellate Tribunal is misconceived. The copy is certified and due to black ink's impression of the stamp it has been misconceived that it is a photo state copy.
4. Conversely, Mian Muhammad Asif and Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khan Minhas, Advocates, counsel for the respondents seriously opposed the petition for leave to appeal on the ground that the same has incompetently been filed. Both the petitioners are public officers and according to the provisions of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Law Department Manual without sanction of the Government they cannot file the appeal/PLA directly. Moreover, through the impugned judgment the learned Forest Appellate Tribunal has not imposed any penalty or passed any final order. Only the observation has been made against the concerned public servants which is subject to inquiry by the competent departmental authority, therefore, no question of law of public importance is involved in the petition for leave to appeal, the same merits dismissal.
5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and perused the record made available. The objection raised by the respondents has substance, as according to the averments of the petitioners they are civil servants/public officers of the Forest Department and presently are holding the posts of the Forest Guard and the Range Officer, respectively. Under the provisions of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Law Department Manual, 1984, the petitioners being public officers/civil servants of the Forest Department without previous sanction of the competent authority cannot file the appeal/PLA. The term "public officers" is defined in the Law Department Manual that "Public Officer' means and includes a member of civil services of Azad Jammu & Kashmir or any other services maintained under authority of Government". Under the provisions of rule 29 of the Law Department Manual, 1984, no appeal on behalf of the public officer is competent unless sanction of the Minister In charge and in case of his absence the Secretary Law. Rule 29 is reproduced as under:- "29. Sanction in suits etc., by or on behalf of the Government and Public officers. No suit, appeal, review, revision, petition etc., on behalf of the Government or Public officer, as the case may be, shall be instituted without the sanction of the Minister In charge and in case of his absence the Secretary Law:-"
Thus, the instant petition for leave to appeal has incompetently been filed, which is not maintainable being filed against the statutory provisions.
6. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the petitioners have failed to make out any legal ground for grant of leave. As the Forest Appellate Tribunal has only made the observation in the light of the appreciation of the evidence that the concerned civil servants of the Forest Department, who acted carelessly and negligently should be proceeded according to law. This observation is not the final rather the matter has yet to be determined after conducting the proper proceedings by the competent authority. Thus even on merits the petitioners have got no locus standi and legal cause of action, therefore, finding no force this petition for leave to appeal stands dismissed along with the application for interim relief.