1987 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Preventive action and action under local and special laws. "Below average" "General remarks." Who failed to work out any case of theft in city and also failed to take any preventive action during five months as subordinate. He will have to work extremely hard to learn Police Work. The appellant made a representation to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad which was‑rejected, vide order, dated 24‑10‑1983. Then, the appellant made another representation to the Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab Lahore which was filed by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad vide No.318/CRC, dated 8‑2‑1984 with the following remarks:‑ "According to para No.18 of revised Standing Order No.32, the officers adversely reported upon will have only one right of making a representation and absolute finality would attach to decision taken thereon, whether in favour of the officer or against. Orders of the expunging authority will not be subject to review by the successor/next higher authority." Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e., Mr. Anwar Ali Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.A.G. Humayun, District Attorney on behalf of the respondents assisted by the representative of the respondents.

5. On the outset it has been pointed out by the learned District Attorney that the appeal is time barred and he dismissed on this score alone. He has pointed out that the representation of the appellant was rejected by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad Range vide order, dated 24‑10‑1983 and according to para. 18 of the revised Standing Order No.32 of the Punjab Police Department no second representation lies for the cases of the adverse remarks. The appellant should have filed an appeal to this Tribunal within 30 days of the final order, dated 24‑10‑1983, by which the representation of the appellant was rejected by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad Range but the appellant has filed this appeal on 2‑5‑1984, after a lapse of more than 5 months. Thus, the appeal is time‑barred and be rejected on the point of limitation.

6. The appellant's counsel was asked to put forth his view point on the objection so raised by the learned District Attorney regarding time limit. He referred to the grounds in his application filed alongwith the appeal for condonation of delay. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant and that in the first instance the order, dated 24‑10‑1983 of respondent No.3, was communicated to the appellant on 24‑12‑1983. Secondly, the appellant, on advice of an Advocate filed a revision petition on 21‑1‑1984, but it was filed by the respondent No.2 vide his order, dated 8‑2‑1984 and the said order was communicated to the appellant on 7‑4‑1984. Thus, delay in filing the present appeal has not been intentional but due to the above‑stated facts. He prayed for the condonation of delay.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the application, dated 30‑4‑1984 submitted by the appellant, alongwith his appeal for condonation of delay. I find that the reasons advanced by the appellant are not convincing. If the order, dated 24‑10‑1983, rejecting the appeal of the appellant by respondent No.3 was received by him on 24‑12‑1983, even then, he was required to file an appeal to this Tribunal within 30 days of this date. The plea has been taken by the appellant and that he filed the revision petition on the advice of the Advocate but no affidavit of the said Advocate has been filed. Even the name of the learned Advocate has not been disclosed by the appellant. Thus, this reason of delay has not been properly explained by the appellant /appellant's counsel and is not convincing. Moreover, this is a known fact that no second representation lies in cases of the adverse remarks when a representation, has been rejected by the concerned authority. It is also clear from para. 18 of revised Standing Order No. 32 of the Punjab Policed Department which lays down that the officer adversely reported upon, will have only one right of making a representation and absolute finality would attach to decision taken thereon. Orders of expunging authority will not be subject to review by the successor/next higher authority.

8. Keeping the facts in para. 7 of this judgment in view, I do not find any justification for condonation of delay and the objection raised by the learned District Attorney that the appeal is time‑barred is absolutely valid and without going into the merits of the case, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.

9. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is time‑barred and is dismissed as such. There will be no order as to costs. A. A. Appeal dismissed.