' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Sardar Muhammad Zafarullah Khan Joiya, Section Officer (Retd.) has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab, Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, Secretary (Services), Government of the Punjab, Lahore, Finance Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Home Department, Lahore, Joint Secretary (Jails) Government of the Punjab, Home Department, Lahore and Under Secretary, S-VIII, Services General Administration and Information Department, Lahore, as Respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders, adverse entries, warnings and order of treating him leave as leave without pay, be set aside including the punishment of censure.
3. Brief facts of the case are that while he was working as Superintendent in the Finance Department during the year 1971, his leave was treated as extraordinary leave without pay, for his absence from duty from 10th November, 1971 to 11th November, 1971 (2 days). In lieu of this he was administered warning vide order dated 11th December, 1971. Similarly, vide order dated 22nd March, 1972, issued by Mr. Shahid Hamid, Deputy Secretary (Administration), Finance Department the appellant was found absent from duty w. e. f. 22nd December, 1971 10 26th December, 1971. He was issued warning for this lapse and the period of absence was treated leave without pay vide order dated 21st March, 1972. Vide order dated 8th June, 1973, a warning was placed on the Character Roll of the appellant. Against all these above-mentioned warnings as well as being treated on leave without pay, he filed representations to the higher authorities which were rejected on 24th February, 1972 and 16th May, 1972 respectively.
4. It is on the record that on 2nd November, 1974, he was conveyed through a letter signed by Mr. Safadarullah Khan addressed to the appellant that his work and conduct has been adversely reported for the period from 1st January, 1973 to 31st December, 1973, by the Reporting Officer. The same officer, vide letter dated 12th September, 1975, informed the appellant that his work and conduct for the period September, October and November, 1974, has been recorded as 'Below Average'. Similarly Mr. Taqiuddin Pal, Deputy Secretary, Home Department, informed the appellant vide letter dated 16th August, 1975, that he has been rated as "Below Average" by the countersigning officer for his work of the same period. In the year 1976 vide letter dated 8th March, 1976, Mr. Abdul Majid Khan (Deputy Secretary (Provl.) S&GAD informed the appellant through a letter that his work and conduct for the period 20th August, 1975 to 31st December, 1975, was found 'Below Average' and he was considered unfit for promotion and has reached his ceilings. In the year 1979, Mr. Aslam Hayat Qureshi, Secretary (Services) S&GAD, vide his order, dated 11th January, 1979, censured the appellant for certain irregularities so committed by him and the same was placed on his A. C. R. The appellant filed representations for expunction of adverse entries so recorded against him and the same were rejected on 27th August, 1978. However, he filed another representation dated 8th January, 1981, which was also rejected vide order dated 12th January, 1981.
Hence this appeal.
5. The case has been pending with this Tribunal for a pretty long time as the same was instituted in the year 1981. Throughout this period, the appellant has been appearing in person and seeking adjournments on one pretext to another. On 25th October, 1982, when the case was fixed for arguments, he sent a telegram requesting for adjournment on the ground of illness. The case was adjourned to 24th November, 1982. We have again received a telegram on his behalf for adjournment of the case for an indefinite period. Keeping in view the conduct of the appellant in delaying the decision of this Tribunal on his appeal under discussion we have perused the record of this case ourselves and have acted under rule 19 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1975, which permits this Tribunal to meet such situation by hearing the other party(s) and decide the case.
6. We have heard the learned District Attorney and have also perused the comments so filed by the respondents and have taken into consideration all the grounds of appeal so incorporated in the Memorandum of appeal, filed by the appellant.
7. The fact of the matter is that the appellant has agitated all soft of matters relating to his service record, in one appeal, at one time, which according to the procedure laid down under the rules, should have been agitated through different appeals as orders impugned have been made from time to time, spreading over a period of 1971 to 1979. In this way the appeal badly suffer from misjoinder of cause of action.
8. However to do justice in this case, we have decided to proceed with the appeal as it is, and will first of all refer to the preliminary objection raised by the learned District Attorney on the point of limitation. According to the learned District Attorney the case of the appellant can be splatted into two parts as under :
(1) His cause of grievance against various warnings/censure, period of absence being treated as leave without pay, pertained to the period of 1971 to 1973.
(2) The period relating to adverse entries placed in his A. C. R's of 1973-1974 and 1975.
(3) Ultimate censure placed in his record in the year 1979.
' It has been submitted that representation made by the appellant with regard to the first part, stood rejected in the years 1972 and 1973, thus the grievance of the appellant stood finally resolved by virtue of this rejection and appellant was duty bound to file appeals against the final orders within one month of the said rejection. In this manner, the cause of action to the appellant stood hopelessly time-barred by a period of 8 years. Similarly while referring to part 2, it has been pointed out that the representation against adverse entries also stood rejected in the year 1978, therefore, this cause of action was also barred by time over a period of 3 years. So far as censure for the year 1979 is concerned, no departmental appeal was filed against the same for full two years. With the said analysis of time factor, learned District Attorney has submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed as hopelessly time barred as well as suffered from misjoinder of cause of action.
9. With regard to the merits of the case it has been submitted that treatment of period of absence as leave without pay, is neither a penalty nor punishment, therefore, the appellant would have no cause of action in any manner of whatsoever against such orders. With regard to the censure and warnings and adverse entries in his A. C. Rs,, it has been submitted that the same were based on good grounds, keeping in view the chequered performance of the appellant during the course of his service and appellant had no right to agitate against the same, particularly when he is no more in service.
10. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the learned District Attorney and keeping in view the documentary evidence on the record we are fully satisfied that the appellant's case is badly bit by a misjoinder of cause of action as well as falls within the mischief of limitation prescribed by section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
11. The result is, we do not find any merits in this appeal and proceed to dismiss the same as being time barred as well as suffering from misjoinder of cause of action with cost. Security will be forfeited to meet the cost.