1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner formerly a Revenue Patwari, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, dated 14-10-1982 dismissing his appeal for failure to implead the necessay party, in terms of Rule 7 of the Tribunal Rules.
2. ' After a show-cause notice had been served on the petitioner and he had been heard in the matter the Assistant Commissioner passed the order of his removal from service. He appealed to the Commissioner who dismissed his appeal. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal in which he impleaded the State through A.C./Collector Shorkot omitting to implead the Authority against whose order he had come up in appeal namely, the Commissioner. An objection was taken at the hearing of the appeal which prevailed with the Tribunal and finding the appeal to be incompetent for want of necessary party, the Tribunal dismissed it.
3. ' Ch. Muhammad Ahmad Bani, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that State had been impleaded and the Commissioner being a subordinate functionary of the State should be taken to be impleaded indirectly. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal could have itself impleaded the Commissioner and corrected that defect, if any, in presentation of the appeal. Finally attention has been drawn to Rule 6 of the Tribunal Rules providing that where appeals do not conform to that rule they are required to be returned by the Registrar for rectification within 14 days. According to the learned counsel the same procedure could be adopted for the correction of this defect.
4. Rule 7 of the Tribunal Rules required that the competent authority should be impleaded. The competent authority for passing the order was the Assistant Commissioner and for hearing the appeal was the Commissioner. The A Appellate Authority having passed an order notwithstanding the fact it was an order of affirmance, the order of the Collector merged into that of the Commissioner. In the circumstances, Rule 7 remained uncomplied with and has been rightly invoked by the Tribunal.
5. ' The Tribunal could certainly direct the impleading of the Commissioner but it appears that no request was made by the petitioner for getting the Commissioner impleaded. In the absence of such request the Tribunal was not obliged to implead the Commissioner.
6. ' Reference to Rule 6 of the Tribunal Rules is of no avail because it relates to the facts mentioned in Rule 6 and not to defects of the nature mentioned in Rule 7.
7. ' The Tribunal has taken a correct view of the law and has passed an order which it was competent to pass in its discretion on the facts and circumstances of the case. No ground is made out for leave to appeal which is hereby refused.
8. ' Leave to .