ISLAMABAD: The Sup­r­eme Court has held that law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who are sleeping over their rights.

“Delay in invoking a lawful remedy by a person or entity that was sle­e­ping over their rights may be den­ied,” observed Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi in a judgement he wrote on an appeal filed by Mumtaz Uddin Sha­ikh against the Feb 9, 2022 rejection by the Federal Service Tribunal (FST).

Justice Rizvi was heading a two-judge bench also consisting of Jus­tice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi. It is a well-settled principle of law that the question of laches (unreasonable delay) in invoking any right is always considered in light of the conduct of the person, Justice Rizvi obs­e­rved. In the case at hand, he added, the record reveals that the petitioner always demonstrated a lack of seriousness in pursuing his rights.

This is evident from the fact that the petitioner was dismissed from service on March 20, 2007, but he preferred the service appeal after a delay of two years in 2009. Thereafter, he did not avail remedy of appeal rather kept sleeping over his rights, the judgement noted.

Govt employee denied reinstatement of job

When asked about his service appeal before the FST, the petitioner respon­ded that since an FIR in the case had been registered, he had apprehension of being arrested.

Click to see more

But this response contradicted the record, the order explained, adding that the petitioner’s service appeal after his acquittal in the criminal case was also barred by time and he had failed to justify such delay.

Thus, the petitioner’s conduct throughout the proceedings has been questionable, the judgement said, adding that FST was correct in dismissing his appeal on the grounds of limitation as well as merits.

The petitioner had assailed the Feb 9, 2022 rejection of his appeal by the FST. The petitioner was appointed a clerk on Jan 1, 1990 in the General Post Office, Hyderabad, but was suspended on Sept 8, 2006 on the grounds of inefficiency, misconduct, and corruption.

A show-cause notice was issued to him on Feb 27, 2007 pertaining to misappropriation of Rs565,730, though it was vehemently denied by the petitioner.

After an inquiry, the petitioner was sacked on March 20, 2007 on charges of misappropriation of military pension of Rs820,876. The petitioner challenged his dismissal through a departmental appeal on April 2, 2007, which was rejected.

He then approached the FST through a service appeal which was also rejected in limine as hopelessly being barred by time vide judgement of June 16, 2010.

The department refer­red the matter to FIA for lodging of an FIR against the petitioner which was acco­rdingly registered under Sections 409, 468, and 471 of PPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

The case was tried by the Special Court of Anti-Cor­ruption (Central), Hyde­r­abad, which acquitted the petitioner on Dec 16, 2019.

After acquittal, the petitioner sought reinstatement of his service through three department appeals with all back benefits, which remained un-respo­nded. The petitioner then approached the FST as well as the Supreme Court for reinstatement of his job.

The apex court observed that criminal proceedings address allegations of criminal conduct and determine legal culpability, while departmental proceedings were connected with matters of service discipline and conduct. Thus, the results of a criminal case do not necessarily impact issues related to departmental responsibilities and discipline.

“In view thereof, we find that impugned judgement is well-reasoned and has considered all the legal and factual aspects of the matter,” the judgement said, adding that the petitioner had failed to make out a case warranting any interference.

Consequently, this petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed and lea­ve refu­sed, the Supreme Court said.

Published in Dawn, August 1st, 2024