IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 13th December, 2000 whereby Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad while disposing of the appeal, filed by respondent against the order of his dismissal from service modified the penalty of dismissal from service into 'compulsory retirement'.
2. This petition is barred by 21 days, however application has been moved seeking condonation of delay. Relavantparas. Therefrom are reproduced hereinbelow:-- "2. That the petitioners/Pakistan Railways is Government Organization. The impugned judgment received in the Law Branch on 12-3-2001 and the appeal is being filed today i,e, 13-3-2001 without any delay.
3. That the delay in filing the petition is not intentional or deliberate but due to the fact that the impugned judgment received in the concerned office i,e, Law Branch after some delay."
3. We called upon learned counsel for petitioner to justify as to whether on the basis of the ground taken in the application for condonation of delay, ever this Court has shown indulgence because it is well-settled that no preferential treatment will be offered, to Government Department qua the civil litigant, therefore, in view of the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Messrs Azhar Brothers Ltd.
1990. SCMR 1059, Government of the Punjab through Secretary (Services), Services General Administration and Information Department, Lahore and another v. Muhammad Saleem PLD 1995 SC 396, Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 5 others v. Jamaluddin and others 1996 SCM R 727; Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad through Collector of Customs, Sialkot Dry Port, Samberial, District Sialkot and others v. Messrs Raja Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Through General Manager and 3 others (1998 SCM R 307), Lahore High Court, Lahore through Registrar v. Nazar Muhammad Fatiana and others 1998 SCM R 2376 and Chairman, District Evacuee Trust, Jhelum v. Abdul Khaliq PLD 2002 SC 436 we are of the opinion that the ground cited for condonation of delay is not sufficient to condone the delay, as such petition is dismissed being barred by time.
4. During the pendency of this petition, we have passed orders on 9th January, 2001 and 15th January, 2001. Last mentioned order is reproduced hereinbelow in extenso:-- "This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 13-12-2001) for leave to appeal. Alongwith it an application has also been filed for condoning the delay of 21 days. Matter was taken up on the 9th January, 2002 when the following order was passed:-- This petition is barred by 21 days. According to contents of application tiled for condonation or delay, impugned judgment dated 13-12-2000 was received on 12-3-2001 whereas forwarding letter No,8535 indicates that the copy of impugned judgment was dispatched to the department on 21- 12-2000, therefore, to ascertain correct position, we are inclined to go through the, relevant record maintained by the Railways Department as well as the Federal Service Tribunal. Petitioner's counsel is directed to produce the complete record from the concerned branch of the Department i,e, receipt register, etc. On the next date of hearing. He will also direct Mr. Ali Muhammad Chaudhry, Law Officer to appear in person because he has filed an affidavit alongwith application for condonation of delay. Notice be also issued to Registrar, Federal Service Tribunal to depute an officer to appear in Court and produce original Letter No,8535 dated 21-12-2000 alongwith dispatch register on the next date of hearing.
2. It has been noticed that in the cases filed on behalf of the Federal and Provincial Governments the departments file proceedings in Courts after the period of limitation without seeking condonation of delay on sustainable legal grounds except saying that the time was consumed in completing departmental formalities. Whereas on the other hand the settled law is that on the point of limitation Government departments are not to be treated differently. Therefore, to resolve this situation, notice be also issued to Attorney-General for Pakistan. Copy of this order be also sent to him. Adjourned to 15th January, 2002.In response to above direction, Mr. Ali Muhammad Chaudhry, Law Officer as well as Deputy Director, Legal Affairs have entered appearance. They could not produce receipt register and other record to explain the delay and stated that presently the record is not available. An enquiry, according to them is being conducted by concerned authority in this regard. On the other hand Mr. Gul Muhammad Deputy Registrar, Federal Service Tribunal appeared along with record and showed the Dispatch Register as well as postal receipt perusal whereof indicates that the copy of the judgment under challenge dispatched to the petitioners on 21st December, 2000 whereas according to the affidavit sworn by the A.O.R. On behalf of the Law Officer, he received copy of the judgment in Law Branch on 12th March, 2001.
According to both the Railway Officers, initially copies of judgments are received by the higher authorities and it takes sufficient time to reach at the table of concerned officer who is responsible for filing cases before the Court. He also stated that at least 7/8 officers of the Agency remain involved in deciding what action is to be taken in view of the judgments of the Court. It was also one of their explanations that at number of times interested parties managed to cause delay in filing the petition by high jacking the judgments at different stages with the result, the Government cases which are required to be filed before the Courts suffer from limitation. It is not the only case where we have noticed slackness on the part of officers but in number of cases where valuable Government properties are involved. The cases are filed by delay for one or the other reason and ultimately those are decided purely on technicalities i,e, with the result the opponents who are always interested to get favorable decisions succeed on technical points irrespective of the fact whether otherwise they are entitled in the relief or not. As such keeping in view the past experience and also to ensure that a case must be filed promptly by the Government Agencies we issued notice on the last date of hearing to the learned Attorney-General to appear in this case. It has been told that he could not reach the Court because he is busy in arguing a case at Lahore. Be that as it may, we consider it appropriate to constitute a Committee under the Chairmanship of the learned Attorney-General to suggest ways and means while remaining within four corners of the existing laws so as to stop this malady. On the receipt of the suggestions from the Committee order will be passed accordingly. The constitution of the Committee is as under:-- Table 1.Attorney-General. Chairman 2.Law Secretaries of all the Provinces. Members 3.Solicitors of all the Provinces Members 4.Advocates-General of all Provinces. Members 5.Any other representative of the Government Department, Autonomous Bodies including Railways, WAPDA, etc.Members Table The Attorney-General will convene a meeting of the above Committee in his office on Saturday, the 2nd February, 2002 and the Committee will submit its recommendations which will be examined in the presence of Attorney-General and the Advocates-General of all the Provinces and thereafter the matter will be disposed of accordingly. Let this case be fixed subject to soliciting necessary approved from the Hon'ble Chief Justice in the week commencing from 11th February, 2002."
5. It appears that in pursuance of above order a meeting was convened by the Attorney-General in his office, in pursuance of which representative of different departments were invited in order to ensure that the Government's cases will be filed within the prescribed time. These recommendations however, have not been finalized so far, in spite of lapse of considerable time.
Though we have disposed of the matter but we direct that in pursuance of above order let the learned Attorney-General finalize the recommendations as early as could be possible and copies whereof will be supplied to the respective departments so they may adhere to it in future strictly, failing which action against responsible officers shall be initiated Departmentally. A copy of these recommendations be sent to the Registrar of this Court for our perusal in Chambers.
It would not be out of context to note here that prior to this matter, we have already made identical directions in the case of Chairman, District Evacuee Trust, Jhelum (ibid) to the effect that the officers of Government Departments who are responsible for causing delay in instituting proceedings before different Courts shall be penalized because on account of their such conduct.
Government sustains considerable loss which ultimately have to be borne by the public and lethargic tactics of the delinquent officers cannot be tolerated merely either on account of their ignorance of law or for any extraneous consideration. We are hopeful that in presence of these two judgments, in future the members of the Government functionaries shall take interest to institute the proceedings before Courts of law within time as per law of limitation.