IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali 
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan 
 
 
  
 
Civil Petition No.1472 of 2013 
(On 
appeal 
from 
the 
judgment 
dated 
14.05.2013 passed by the Federal Service 
Tribunal, 
Islamabad 
in 
Appeal 
No.269(P)CS/2012) 
 
 
The Commandant Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Constabulary FC Head 
Quarters, Peshawar and another 
… Petitioners 
versus 
 
Amir Ullah Islam and another 
… Respondents 
 
For the petitioners: 
Ms. Shireen Imran, ASC 
 
For respondent No.1: 
Mr. Ijaz Anwar, ASC 
 
Mr. M.S.Khattak, AOR 
 
Date of hearing: 
03.03.2014 
 
ORDER 
 
    
Dost Muhammad Khan, J.— This CPLA is barred by 4 days. 
CMA No.5578/2013 has been filed, seeking condonation of delay on 
the ground that the impugned order is void ab initio, without 
jurisdiction and no limitation runs against the void order and 
because, the delay occurred in filing of the petition was due to 
misunderstanding and mis-calculation of time by the petitioner 
department.  
2. 
  
We are in no manner convinced from the ground taken 
in the CMA and the submissions made at the bar by the learned 
ASC for the petitioners. On this ground alone, the main petition is 
CP 1472/13 
2
liable to be dismissed, hence, the delay cannot be condoned and 
the CMA is dismissed.  
3. 
  
There 
is 
another 
CMA 
No.5577/2013, 
seeking 
suspension of the operation of impugned judgment dated 
14.05.2013 given in W.P.No.269(P)CS/2012, passed by the Federal 
Service Tribunal (FST), Islamabad. However, as we are deciding the 
main petition on merits, therefore, this CMA having become 
infructuous, is disposed of.  
4. 
  
Precisely, stating facts of the case are that Amir Ullah 
Islam, respondent No.1 was working as Naib Subidar in Platoon 
No.276, 
Frontier 
Constabulary, 
was 
stationed 
at 
Khyber 
Pakhtunkhaw. During operation in F.R. Peshawar, he along with 
many others, allegedly, refused to launch strike against the 
militants, thus, the main charge against him and his co-employees, 
was that they had not only disregarded the command of the 
superior officer but also had shown cowardice.  
5. 
  
Departmental inquiry was conducted but during that no 
opportunity of hearing was provided to him like his colleagues and 
at the conclusion he was dismissed from service.  
6. 
  
After exhausting other remedies, he filed Appeal 
No.296(P)CS/2010 before the FST, Islamabad, which was allowed 
vide judgment dated 06.09.2010 directing the respondent (therein) 
to hold de-novo proceedings against the appellant(s) in accordance 
with the law and the rules, and also to reinstate him into service 
during the period of inquiry.  
CP 1472/13 
3
7. 
  
It was further directed in the judgment by the FST that 
the inquiry be completed, preferably, within a period of four months 
and the question of payment of back benefits would depend upon 
the outcome of the fresh proceedings.  
8. 
  
In the second round, same and similar treatment was 
given to respondent No.1 and not a little respect was shown to the 
judgment of the FST, as it was not complied with in letter and 
spirit, rather the inquiry was conducted in the old fashion and 
according to the whims and wishes of the superiors of respondent 
and that of the inquiry officer, as at that stage too, respondent No.1 
was condemned unheard, so much so that he was not informed 
about the result of inquiry, thus, he again approached the FST, 
Islamabad, 
which 
passed 
the 
judgment 
dated 
14.05.2013, 
impugned herein, and while relying upon the ratio decidendi, laid 
down by this Court in the case of Pakistan International Airlines 
Corporations v. Shaista Naheed (2004 SCMR 316) set aside the 
dismissal order of respondent, declaring it unlawful and illegal. It 
was further directed that the earlier judgment be given effect from 
06.09.2010 in its letter and spirit by issuing clear order of 
reinstatement of respondent No.1 into service. However, the 
petitioners were not restrained from conducting fresh inquiry. 
9. 
  
The learned ASC for the petitioners vehemently argued 
that the appeal filed before the FST was barred by time, however, 
this contention, in our view, has no legal force because the second 
inquiry conducted, was in disregard of the earlier judgment of the 
FST and because, the result of the same was not communicated to 
respondent No.1 as required under the rules. Moreover, the                 
CP 1472/13 
4
co-employees of respondent No.1 have already been reinstated into 
service as was stated at the bar.  
10. 
  
Learned counsel for the replying respondent stated at 
the bar that the delay in filing the appeal before the FST was for the 
reason stated above, besides the fact that during that period the 
FST was not vested with the powers and jurisdiction to implement 
its judgments/orders till the time this Court directed the 
government to amend the law on the subject investing the FST with 
powers to implement its judgments and orders by adopting coercive 
measures.  
11. 
  
The plea of the learned ASC for the replying respondent 
is based on sound reasons, to which no exception could be taken, 
more so, the petitioner-side has committed wrong to the 
respondent twice in two successive inquiries and also disregarded 
the binding judgment of the FST in this regard with all convenience.  
12. 
  
Accordingly, for reasons stated above, the petition 
being barred by time and on merits too, does not deserve any 
indulgence by this Court, hence the same is dismissed and leave to 
appeal declined.  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
3rd March, 2014  
Nisar/* 
 
 
 
 
Not Approved For Reporting 
