IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
Present: 
 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial 
 
Civil Petition No.2411 of 2014  
Against the order dated 28.10.2014  
Passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, 
Lahore in Appeal No.3093 of 2014 
 
Muhammad Akram 
 
 
 
 
Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
DCO, Rahim Yar Khan & others 
 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
 
Mr. Muhammad Bashir Khan, ASC 
 
For Respondent(s): 
 
Raja Muhammad Arif, Addl. AG 
 
 
 
 
 
Muhammad Akram, DDEO 
  
 
Date of Hearing:  
 
17.10.2016 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
 Mushir Alam, J-. Muhammad Akram Petitioner Ex-Junior 
Clerk in the office of the AEO (Women) Markaz Bagh-o-Bahar, Tehsil 
Khanpur, District Rahimyarkhan was proceeded departmentally on account 
of extravagant malpractice and prolonged absence from duty w.e.f. 
10.10.2013 and after due proceedings major penalty of dismissal from 
service under section 4(b)(vi) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline 
and Accountability Act, 2009  (PEEDA Act, 2006) was imposed by the 
Competent Authority/DEO (Education) Rahimyarkhan, vide order dated 
04.07.2014 w.e.f. 10.10.2013. 
 
2. 
 
Petitioner instead of filing departmental appeal before appellate 
authority as provided under section 16 of the PEEDA Act, 2006, approached 
the learned High Court in Writ Petition No.5412 of 2014/BWP. The Petition 
was heard and on 16.07.2014 following order was passed:- 
 
“As per request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 
instant writ petition alongwith all its annexures be sent to 
respondent No.1/District Coordination Officer, Rahimyarkhan, 
who shall treat it as departmental appeal of the present 
Civil Petition No.2411 of 2014  
 
2 
petitioner and decide the same on its own merits after hearing 
the present petitioner within a period of one month from the 
date of production of attested copy of this order by the present 
petitioner.”  
 
3. 
 
Consequently, 
the 
writ 
petition 
sent 
to 
the 
DCO, 
Rahimyarkhan, and the appellate authority, to “treat it as departmental 
appeal” and “to decide the same on its own merits after hearing the petitioner 
within a period of one month”. The writ Petition converted into Departmental 
Appeal, was dismissed on merits, at the same time it was observed “that no 
departmental appeal under section 16 of PEEDA Act, 2006 has ever been 
filed by the Petitioner”, vide order dated 5.9.2014, which order was 
maintained through impugned judgment dated 28.10.14 by the Punjab 
Service Tribunal (PST).  
 
4. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner, admitted that indeed appeal 
is provided against the order of departmental authority in terms of section 
16 of the PEEDA Act, 2006, however, he under mistaken belief filed Writ 
Petition within 30 days from the date of the impugned order of his 
dismissal from service. It was argued that he approached the wrong forum 
with promptitude and within the period of limitation, the Writ Petition, filed 
by him was ordered to be treated as departmental appeal and sent to the 
Appellate Authority, which was not decided by the Appellate Authority and 
so also by the PST in accordance with law and he was non suited on 
technicalities. 
 
 5. 
 
Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the 
averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to 
him, the departmental appeal was decided on merits as well as on the point 
of limitation as no appeal was filed before the competent authority/DCO 
concerned within 30 days from the date of his dismissal from service, which 
admittedly was not done, therefore the Appellate authority had not Appeal 
Civil Petition No.2411 of 2014  
 
3 
before it.  It was urged that no exception to the impugned order of the DCO 
Rahimyarkhan, as maintained by the PST could be taken.  
 
6. 
 
Heard the arguments and perused the record. Departmental 
Appeal against the dismissal from service order is provided under section 
16 of the PEEDA, 2006 before the designated Appellate Authority, which in 
instant case admittedly is the DCO Rahimyarkhan. We have examined the 
impugned Order dated 5.9.2014, passed by the Appellate Authority on 
merits with an observation that no Appeal was filed under the PEEDA Act, 
2006, as already noted in the narrative above.  Learned PST without 
adverting to merits of the case, dismissed the Appeal before it on the 
ground of limitation only.  
 
7. 
 
The Courts are sanctuaries of justice, and in exercise of 
authority to do ex debito justitiae, that is to say remedy a wrong and to 
suppress a mischief to which a litigant is entitled. No fetters or bar could be 
placed on the High Court and or this court to convert and treat one type of 
proceeding into another type into another and proceed to decide the matter 
either itself provided it has jurisdiction over the lis before it in exercise of 
another jurisdiction vested in the very court or may remit the lis to the 
competent authority/forum or court for decision on merits. Courts have 
been treating and or converting appeal into revisions and vice versa and 
Constitution Petitions into appeal or revision and vice versa. Even time 
consumed pursuing remedy before a wrong forum in appropriate cases 
could always be condoned (see Shamsul Haq and others v. Mst. Ghoti and 8 
others (1991 SCMR 1135).  
 
8. 
In a case cited as Muhammad Anis and others v. Abdul Haseeb 
and others (PLD 1994 Supreme Court 539), eligibility for consideration of 
promotion; was successfully challenged in writ jurisdiction of the High 
Court. On appeal, this Court held that such question is amenable to the 
Civil Petition No.2411 of 2014  
 
4 
Jurisdiction of learned Service Tribunal, therefore, writ is not maintainable, 
impugned judgment passed by the learned Sindh High Court in exercise of 
writ jurisdiction was set aside. In Paragraph 16 of the judgment supra this 
court ordered to treat the Writ Petition, as Service Appeal pending before it 
which will be decided by the Service Tribunal, after notice to the parties 
concerned in accordance with law. In similar circumstances in a judgment 
recently reported as Province of Sindh and another v. Muhammad Ilyas and 
others (2016 SCMR 189) dismissal from service order was challenged 
before the learned Sindh High Court through Constitution Petition. The 
Constitutional Petition was treated by the High Court as service appeal and 
sent to the Service Tribunal; which was decided by the Service Tribunal on 
merit and this Court declined leave in the matter. Similar course was 
followed by the learned Division Bench of Peshawar High Court in a case 
reported as Engineer Musharaf Shah v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 
and 2 others (2015 PLC (C.S) 215). 
  
9.          As noted above the DCO Rahimyarkhan, decided the Writ Petition 
No. 5412 of 2014 treating it as Departmental Appeal on merits as ordered 
by the Bahawalpur Bench of the Lahore High Court, but at the same time 
held “that no departmental appeal under section 16 of PEEDA Act, 2006 has 
ever been filed by the Petitioner”, which observation under given facts and 
circumstances was uncalled for. Apparently it is last mentioned observation 
of the Departmental Appellate Authority, which influenced the PST to 
dismiss the Service Appeal as barred by time. Once the Writ Petition, which 
was filed within the period of limitation as provided for the departmental 
appeal, was treated and remitted by the High Court as Departmental 
Appeal, that too when the limitation by than had not ran out as noted 
above. Learned PST, had fallen in to error to dismiss the Appeal before it on 
the ground of limitation alone, without adverting to the merits of the case 
as were attended by the DCO Rahimyarkhan.  As noted above date of filing 
Civil Petition No.2411 of 2014  
 
5 
of the writ petition within time should have been reckoned as date of 
Departmental Appeal and ought to have been treated as Departmental 
Appeal for all practical purposes as ordered by the High Court. 
 
10.      The DCO Rahimyarkhan/Appellate Authority, as noted above 
decided the Departmental Appeal on merits, as regard observation made in 
the order dated 5.9.2014 by him “that no departmental appeal under section 
16 of PEEDA Act, 2006 has ever been filed by the Petitioner” in view of above 
discussion, is not in accordance with law to such an extent it cannot be 
approved. We refrain from commenting on merits of the case, which was 
not adverted to by the PST, through impugned Decision dated 28.10.2014, 
which is set aside, Service Appeal No.3093 of 2014, shall be deemed to be 
pending and be decided on merits after hearing all the parties concerned as 
expeditiously as possible. 
 
11.          In view of the foregoing, Petition is converted into appeal and is 
allowed in terms setout above.  
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
ISLAMABAD, THE  
17th October, 2016 
Syed Farhan Ali 
 
Approved for Reporting 
 
