IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
 
 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, CJ. 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED 
  
 
Civil Petition No.4862 of 2018 
 
[Against the judgment dated 23.11.2018 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in 
Appeal No.508(P)CS/2013] 
 
 
Ajmir Shah, Ex-Sepoy.  
…Petitioner (s) 
VERSUS 
The Inspector General, Frontier Corps KPK and 
another  
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the petitioner(s) 
Mr. Aftab Alam Yasir, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
For Respondents No.1-2 
Mr. Nasir Mehmood, ASC 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
19.08.2020. 
 
… 
 
ORDER 
 
  
  Gulzar Ahmed, CJ-. The petitioner was employed as Sepoy 
with Bajour Scouts of the Frontier Corps. He deserted his post, pursuant 
to which he was proceeded against under Section 8(c) of the Frontier Corps 
Ordinance, 1959 (the Ordinance of 1959). On conclusion of trial against 
him, he was awarded punishment of dismissal from service vide letter 
dated 23.10.2008. Such punishment was imposed upon him under 
Section 10 of the Ordinance of 1959. The petitioner sat over the said order 
of punishment to him and did not file any departmental appeal, rather on 
28.03.2013, he filed a departmental appeal on the basis of the judgment of 
Civil Petition No.4862 of 2018 
 
 
 2 
  
  
 
the Federal Service Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 29.11.2011, passed in 
Service Appeal No.300(P)(CS)/2011 of one Muhammad Ali, Ex-Hawaldar of 
Bajour Scouts, where the punishment of dismissal from service of 
Muhammad Ali is said to have been converted by the Tribunal into 
compulsory retirement and it was also alleged that the petition filed by the 
Frontier Corps (F.C.) against such judgment of the Tribunal was dismissed 
by this Court and the order of the Tribunal was implemented. This 
departmental appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the Inspector 
General, F.C. and such was communicated to the petitioner vide letter 
dated 31.05.2013. The petitioner filed service appeal before the Tribunal 
on 01.07.2013, which by the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2018 came 
to be dismissed as time barred.  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the 
petitioner was waiting for the decision on the service appeal of Muhammad 
Ali, Ex-Hawaldar and after the judgment was announced by the Tribunal, 
the same was upheld by this Court and it having been implemented, the 
petitioner filed departmental appeal and that the said departmental appeal 
having been rejected on merit and not on the ground of limitation, the 
service appeal before the Tribunal was in time. In this regard the learned 
counsel relied upon the case of Usman Ali Chhachhar vs. Moula Bukhsh 
Chhachhar (2019 SCMR 2043) = [2020 PLC (CS) 34] to contend that a 2-
Member Bench of this Court has referred the matter to the larger Bench for 
considering the question of maintainability of service appeal before the 
Tribunal when the departmental representation is filed after its limitation 
period has lapsed.  
3. 
 
We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for 
the petitioner and have also gone through the record of the case. 
Civil Petition No.4862 of 2018 
 
 
 3 
  
  
 
4. 
 
The admitted position on the record is that the petitioner was 
proceeded against under Section 8(c) of the Ordinance of 1959 and the 
charge having been proved against him, he was imposed penalty of 
dismissal from service vide letter dated 23.10.2008. Such penalty was 
imposed upon the petitioner under Section 10 of the Ordinance of 1959. 
Section 26 of the said Ordinance has allowed the Federal Government by 
Notification in the official Gazette to make rules and clause (d) thereof, inter 
alia, provides for making of rules for appeals. Pursuant to this provision of 
the Ordinance of 1959, the Federal Government has made the Frontier 
Corps Rules, 1961 (the Rules of 1961). Rule 11 of these Rules provides, 
inter alia, that every member of the Frontier Corps shall only be entitled to 
appeal against an order imposing upon him any of the penalties under 
Section 10 and Rule 14 thereof provides that such an appeal shall be 
preferred within one month from the date on which the appellant is 
informed of the order appealed against, unless the period is extended for 
unavoidable causes of delay so certified by the authority against whose 
order the appeal has been preferred.  
5. 
 
On reading of the above provisions of the Ordinance of 1959 
and the Rules of 1961, it is clear that the petitioner was entitled to file 
departmental appeal against an order imposing upon him penalty of 
dismissal from service and such departmental appeal had to be filed by the 
petitioner within one month from the date on which he was informed of the 
order appealed against.  
6. 
 
It is admitted position that the petitioner filed the departmental 
appeal against the order of dismissal dated 23.10.2008 on 28.03.2013, 
after more than 
4 years and 5 months. The petitioner has not attached 
with the petition the copy of departmental appeal, which he had filed 
Civil Petition No.4862 of 2018 
 
 
 4 
  
  
 
against the order of his dismissal. However, as canvassed by the learned 
counsel for the petitioner before us that the petitioner did not file the 
departmental appeal, for the reason that service appeal of Ex-Hawaldar, 
Muhammad Ali was pending before the Tribunal and petitioner waited for 
the decision of the said service appeal, and only after such service appeal of 
Muhammad Ali was decided by the Tribunal, converting his penalty of 
dismissal to compulsory retirement, upheld by this Court and implemented 
by the department, the petitioner filed the departmental appeal. 
7. 
 
In our view, such could not have been a sufficient cause or 
reason for the petitioner to file his departmental appeal after more than 4 
years and 5 months. It seems that petitioner himself was not aggrieved of 
the order by which he was dismissed from service and the assertion of the 
petitioner that he waited for the result of the service appeal of Ex-Hawaldar 
Muhammad Ali, shows that the petitioner relied upon the grievance of Ex-
Hawaldar, Muhammad Ali and not of his own. Had the Ex-Hawaldar 
Muhammad Ali lost his case, that would have been the end of the matter 
and the petitioner would have not raised grievance against the order of his 
dismissal. The law does not leave choice to an employee to raise his 
grievance after his colleague is succeeded in the case. The employee has to 
raise his grievance immediately when cause to him has arisen and more so 
within the limitation period for it is also provided by law. We may further 
note that Rule 14 in clear terms provides for filing of a departmental appeal 
within one month from the order imposing penalty. The extension of period 
for filing of a departmental appeal is also provided in the very rule i.e. for 
unavoidable causes of delay so certified by the authority against whose 
order the appeal has been preferred. We have not been shown nor is it 
pleaded in the memo of appeal that the authority, who has imposed penalty 
Civil Petition No.4862 of 2018 
 
 
 5 
  
  
 
upon the petitioner, has extended the period for filing of the departmental 
appeal by the petitioner. No such certification of the authority is available 
on the record.  
8. 
 
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that 
the departmental appeal of the petitioner has been decided on merits and 
thus, the limitation for filing of the departmental appeal stood impliedly 
condoned by the appellate authority, we are not impressed by such 
argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the 
Rules itself provide for the manner and mechanism in which the period of 
limitation for filing of the departmental appeal could be extended i.e. 
unavoidable causes of delay so certified by the authority against whose 
order the appeal has been preferred. The implication of this Rule, as it 
appears, is that the petitioner was required to apply to the authority 
against whose order he wishes to file an appeal for extension of time citing 
unavoidable causes of delay and only after authority has so certified, the 
delay in filling of the departmental appeal could be condoned. As the record 
suggests, the petitioner has not applied to the authority seeking extension 
of time for filling of a departmental appeal.  
9. 
 
It is well settled principle of law that where a law requires doing 
of something in a particular manner it has to be done in the same manner 
and not otherwise. Reliance in this respect is place upon the cases of 
Muhammad Hanif Abbasi vs. Imran Khan Niazi (PLD 2018 SC 189), 
Shahida Bibi vs. Habib Bank Limited (PLD 2016 SC 995) and Human 
Rights Cases Nos.4668 of 2006 etc. (PLD 2010 SC 759).  
10. 
 
Further we note that the power for extension of period for filing 
of a departmental appeal under Rule 14 was vested in the authority against 
whose order the appeal is preferred and no power of extension of a period 
Civil Petition No.4862 of 2018 
 
 
 6 
  
  
 
for filing of a departmental appeal apparently seems is vested with the 
appellate authority under the scheme of law as laid down in the Ordinance 
of 1959 and the rules made under it. Thus, we note that the principle of 
implied extension could not be pressed in the present case, for that, the 
appellate authority in law was not vested with the power of granting 
extension in filing of a departmental appeal.  
11. 
 
Reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on Usman Ali 
Chhachhar’s case (supra) is also of not much help, for that, in the said case 
the Court has considered, inter alia, the provision of the Civil Servants 
(Appeal) Rules, 1977, which rules are altogether different from the rules 
made under the Ordinance, 1959, which were not subject matter of the 
cited case and thus, is distinguishable.    
12. 
 
We are, therefore, of the considered view that the Tribunal in 
the impugned judgment has rightly found the service appeal of the 
petitioner to be time barred and thus, find no reason to interfere with the 
same. The petition is dismissed and leave refused.  
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
   
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
19th August, 2020 
Approved for reporting 
Rabbani/* 
