' Ghulam Qadir has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala and the Assistant Commissioner/Collector (Sadar) Sub-Division, Gujranwala as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the orders, dated 25-2-1982 passed by the respondent No,2 and dated 21-11-1982 passed by respondent No, 1 be set aside and the appellant be ordered to be re-instated retrospectively with all the benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Bundo Khan Lamberdar of Village Gilgitti, Tehsil and District Gujranwala applied to the Tehsildar on 14-9-1980 to the effect that the appellant realized an amount of Rs,1,994 from Muhammad Yousaf son of Rahim Bakhsh as land revenue for Kharif 1979, through a receipt. He further mentioned that the appellant also realized Rs,1,700 from Nasiro son of Latif and also Rs, 500 from Bundo Khan complainant as land revenue. He requested that these amounts may be realized from Ghulam Qadir Patwari. The Tehsildar, Gujranwala, recorded the statement of Bundo Khan on 15-9-1980 and summoned the appellant to appear on 20-9-1980 to explain his position. The appellant avoided to appear. Tehsildar submitted his report on 22-9-1980 to the effect that Ghulam Qadir (the appellant) had realized the amount as land revenue but he did not deposit the amount into the Government treasury. The appellant was placed under suspension by the order of A.C./Collector, dated 25-9-1980. The matter was brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner and recommended for registration of case under section 409, P.P.C. As preliminary enquiry had already been {{BLUR PAGE}} held and documentary evidendelvitiavailabIeshow-cause notice under section 6(3) of the Punjabiy41:etyggs,,(g&D) Rules, 1975 was issued on 30-9-1980. The appellant replied to this show- cause notice. He was heard on 30-4-1981 and again on 1-6-1981 by the A.C./Collector. As the charge of misconduct stood proved against the appellant, he was dismissed from service vide impugned order, dated 25-2-1982 of the A.C. /Colletor (Seder) Sub-Division;9Cujranwala. The appellant made an appeal to the Commissioner, Oujr4nwala Guiranwala, which was rejected vide order, dated 214i-1982. Fence thisappeal.
4. I have heard the pttrties.. It has been argued ,by the learned counsel for the appellant thai the appellant has been" PiiniShed for no fault of his. It--Was tiCitclit4'.Dtity of the appellant -to collect. The land revenue and has been punished for allepd embezzlement, of the land revenue which was not actually colleqs0dbyliim and he trAS Seen falsely implicated in the case and,as kre,010as beertpianishedwre4ly. It was further pointed out by the learned counsel of the,,tkripenant:that the affidavits of Bundo Khan, Lamberdar at'Annexure 'W` iidhamniad'
Yousaf -son' 'of =ChtP *gam Bak h Sh= A nnexttriOlittV clearly certifyhat the. Appellant ha4.,noiihand in ,collection ox r@ pig of the .Land :revenue from .These -persap*,.,:441ixig on thp; .14ftla'As jt: t?
Slep,aypaltted by the learned counsel. Pox tha. a pp APIA ::x0,,C OP? Lint,N Bun do a Laraberday, =thrquibis4f,fidayiet..,h#s Ayen[4W : made, any complainir;against, tbetc,appctilwit AMY kli01-9, copy of receipt to the Tetisildar, showing payment to to the tppf.1110; and he did not have any such receipt in original with him.. On the face of this affidavit, the appelltint punished without charges"'hitaWg'been"pidiredttageindt,'Ithe=appellttet. It was also submitted by the learned counApithwthe appellant that the appellant has, lmen prejudiced in the matter. No regular enquiry was held against tie ivonaric Are was itlit'`giverilrokibtituilitifs to defend --himself to his satteYAktOn. If this iebidd''have been lone, 444-imatter would have been " 'arid the aptiellake Woitttl '':-Mtve'tibeetildeclarett-461,1nnecent-. It has been also vehemently Viiiyid liy'''ttfeniffipitlaneOtintiW that the aPPeltlant has ;02 i.45statsi oserOgeott AA0 while. Dewing his case, tis-lengthlioLtierfieedia-P-otrAPPn kaP99 v,49P4,-*)cAlt# pUnistnent, awarded ..underi4-4n abfwtrAipournstancea of - tlye Rajwfim,..Wicapect,,feEpi unjustified and haratt.,,nsci ,14) be,11.11ani-31 =,ci c. V.Pnttnivgiding,,tlw above allegations of the appellant District Attorney has raiip,46.On.,1*3parawirtimenp,siikajOcr reopPnittotg.. 4-,Yaar.,P9.41440=i9Ilitf4KA!Ffi :-*Ptt.**11A'a4-_#'
0400'1 813110Am/41 had dep94o4f4tp,areiymnInicc *9.031 0-14) Ase#9444,,,Ofruti on 244-.1980, in;- C/OV,SMoptept,,.Xreary,,.-- 'Fr' -Yr Baqi 14Ewiss, .Tehail!-Guiran4a dated 44;9-4989,A' of,,B0A, uiNut6ciaposit#4,#241-1.980 throw. e; twig, TtittaFit4tuith-glfilkroPlat .0444ro,40fr, Pat Yiart,19'eAliP4124910.Efti's'
She i4ntoisAkt!;:mbfin AP: came '4? 144914 that' E(ettKinkR, ifi.Brk-gic;ewalf--:betegi,rftgisteredilgainst him forte,ettiyeVemeaf.,A.:3 # said,-,amounts,..:It was pointed out, by,th,9,1emnfA.Aistri0Q-410311fixte, .Government 4V .141..Itthp apPTaAtilt cpArq pew/Pt:that tlez. issiguj14 of 04aCPRAtrIS OZPeOleinikift "ragelittpt, him and tictiAf"Pnifis9PPIlf-ASPMO'Y';414,..Rttr,qtri. ),Ti 1 -- ". Llebutting 1114 litiovViiiea btatrictAkttoltiney,'Ittfe learne'd counsel for AllebatitieliWtit stliittitteditifatinlinthei.Ilppellant was apprehending troubleifitile Wig-Superiors due AO their mile. Fide intentions, {{BLUR PAGE}} hence, there was no alternativeibUt-taJleposit Rs,4,194 in the Government treasury, from, his own pocket, to save himself from the high handedness of the po1iceidepaOtliiiital authorities; otherwise keeping in view liis :argUments the'..'app'ellaht is innocent and not guilty`' or'itny , pli,S011dUct whatsoever.,_ 14a,Sb:V, '
7. I have given my anxious thought to the ,argpmentaiefithe parties and h carefully Rereeed the record of this , case . ,Orde of the Commissioner, fit544iih; 'CtitriiriWatti dated '2{1147-,,. 2, is a *ailed, and ecaprelieh W-7:4'lidekr:.:Which the arguments so advanCeit thf=440tk vAi.n in di4jrahviale Division, hege Mote' negate the artuitieritel3 appellatiVi totifitet7ijItite deposit '-017,411110tinti i':;of Rs, 4i194 -,tby 'the I appellant in the treasury' 244-1980h icitairlyii*roves Atilt the:::, amount was earlie r embezzletfliy,:Abe,appellahlDend was deposited by :bim;:iwhert, this,;came tti' the notice Of hit etiperiore;F.'ito 'save his :skid i; Irhuai, the ieharge anibeetlemeint, proved against the f,appellant . nHowever, en e Sect : of thle'Case'clin tint be ignored rtindnia 'tube ltept,in view thati the appellant ited loiig eirvice of "3years - rtriii.Iithe:'Yearc-f9500te-319824iati=confirmed efte:,depaigtMenter,teollesetitatiVezatz:'thiti tithe: of tedritigibiti this :case) and 1 thafilhe,Vitilialrmeiird a viatil cOnsowande:3with of the. etfPeitent'lattd ;length of,hie)etklivittel.b fi911111. 9'10 a 911S UX11111CICAD f ri< r rte':--UPOng.,ttle:41PY9,#1#41914 awarded be modified as N9triaiulopfy 9 gpthreinfijkt 9!, '!,41Ft911,,, from service". The impugned orders are directed to be modified lo`th 6tibwieftion\t/ ;.Kad 1.):113.1e. A s)sieri I .A-f, 4'n 8i .Eiji{ ej unt 440#-11,41 P1.9,1f4AS:0 OiEtr 118 190f4Wrtittf4..!2 f01071113.Ui".Erri M.V.M. \r'ei .Atiw 9r1.1' lorifiet.Itecotaintif.t.
Id; ? 1;,511-upt-sqe at43f1 -I o-:~ disqn.;;9_ fl .7.4.11'17 chid a;!:c..t.)
8 rairit 3losiT , no PAE s 1.7 di ;41.0c)e airft .:Fon (Se{{BLUR PAGE}}rv? Ice Tribunal Punjab)t" baliiradoe_- t,86!fiffrEhtiAkilY;1,-4criligAha/4214.,iffe)Perr4,-,-11,,i noittisq k31 -tit Qcmst- AQA.ibisiirAtc.fiHriaqq.z.,11 aisti t :1 h 1;1 ezta Lot4 .Froforit...Ic,,z91,- .91019d befuri.c9f )cti -(:; qodruil oItivtio BS b9n(thfki') 114SPEOTiattkaGENBRAV OfitP111SONSillIRMAti `RA i:: Isbelk: WO 400faiimmEaithd112 othersofis31:s r: .1.1, 8 .; ItA Atit.i.s;at4 Case No,11/101 of 1983, decided a' izth septemDer, las3. jApr.,.12,;p :3flOta f04.8f1 lktniRkiP.F.A7.49 .T5WMFIW' ARI;Atia tRA-14??-frIk7711, bqairelc' :31J 1- ai,d-W1-44-1Attil4tion Atetu (IX asfiCit468),38 6-4411i rtgi ofbappeal- dOrtatipn ctifittarey- wOeParimenitil 140treal: ';serVant Sivejeeted bow 1.1.6e1-982 ; hbit.iii4q titiVetil before" Tribeinalaliled 4,imu., i:19441983 nifter.Lit delay ArOi 9 ,Aiti nitt -telkfiltiVtli ciVil:servantirwpplicatfontrt condonation Virt y.? Aot t -Satisfitebitdonatioreof delay and review t-PelitiOn not before 11Mo-rune ntal,,'authority a under etotArtit ______________________________________________________________________ Orlittegilkehoec.c,es such- not entitled ta,dondpnetitin icOftliotayiirtlirdingl appaik oirculilistantlea.nitai0282i noi. V51_ la8Si,cr 1;:rdi nag fOrt Oh hhialitaq RasoOd rot 'APperfant. , ,ti A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for lieSpOlidelitd:-
' Appellant Qadar Bakhsh, ex-Warder No,1546 had made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Inspector-General of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore Superintendent Headquarter Jails, Multan, and Superintendent, New Central Jail Bahawalpur.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that order passed by respondent No, 3 and consequentiy confirmed by the respondent No,2 and the order, dated 1-6-1982 passed by the Inspector-General of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore be set aside. Lie has further prayed that he be declared to be continuous in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a show-cause notice on 4-1-1982 by Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur that while the appellant posted as Incharge Circle No,2 during the night 11/12-7-1981, nine prisoners started to break out the walls of the cells and succeeded in escape, thus, the appellant was guilty of negligence of the duties, which resulted in escape of prisoners. The appellant replied to this show-cause notice but the reply was found unsatisfactory. The appellant was dismissed from service by Superintendent New Central Jail, Bahawalpur subject to the confirmation by the Superintendent Headquarters Jail, Multan. Superintendent Jail, Multan, also confirmed the said punishment. The appellant filed an appeal before the Inspector-General of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore which was dismissed on 1-6-1982. Hence this appeal.
3-A. I have heard the parties. A stand has been taken by the learned District Attorney that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred and is not maintainable. It has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that the appeal of the appellant was rejected by the I.-G. Prisons, Punjab on 1-6-1982 and he was required to file the appeal before this Tribunal within 30 days of this date. But, the appellant has filed this appeal on 19-3-1983. Thus the appeal is time-barred by more than 8 months, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand submitted that this delay has happened due to the reason that a review petition before respondent No,1 was filed by the appellant which was done to obviate further litigation. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the delay in submission be condoned as request made by the appellant in his application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, and reasons given therein.
5. I have gone through the record of this case to adjudicate the important issue raised by the learned District Attorney. I find that the appeal was rejected by the I.-G. Prisons, Punjab, Lahore vide his order, dated 1-6-1982 and the appellant should have filed the appeal to this Tribunal within 30 days. The reasons given by the appellant in his application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act are not convincing and does not satisfy me to condone the delay. No further review petition was admissible to respondent No,1 under the rules and the appellant should have not wasted the time in filing unnecessary review petition to respondent No,l. Thus, it was an obvious negligence on the part of the appellant and no case for condoning the delay has been made out by the appellant.
6. Keeping in view the above analysis, the appeal is time-barred more than 8 months and is dismissed as such on this score alone.
' There will be no order as to costs.