1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

I have heard the preliminary arguments and perused the record. An aggrieved civil servant can file an appeal against a final order before this Tribunal under Section 4 of the Act within the stipulated period. Section 4 of the Act reads:‑‑

4. Appeals to Tribunal.‑‑ Any civil servant by a final order, whether original or appellate made by a departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service including disciplinary matter may, within thirty days of the communication of such order to him or within six months of the establishment of the appropriate Tribunal whichever is later prefer an appeal to the Tribunal: (a) Where an appeal, review or representation to departmental authority is provided under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servant Act, 1976 or any rules made thereunder, no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal unless the aggrieved civil servant has preferred an appeal or application for review or representation to such departmental authority and period of ninety days has elapsed from the date on which such appeal, application or representation was so preferred; It would appear from the plain reading of the above Section that an appeal could only be preferred against a final order within the prescribed period. The departmental appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of his dismissal from service was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police on 5‑11‑1985. Under rule 16.29 (2) of the Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred as the Rules), the order passed by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police as an appellate authority was final. The said sub‑rule reads as under:‑‑ (2) There shall be one appeal from the original order, and the order of appellate authority shall be final. The impugned order thus passed by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police on 5‑11‑1985 was final, after which it was open for the appellant to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal or to prefer a review petition before the departmental authority on his own choice. But under the proviso (a) of the section 4 of the Act, the departmental remedies essential to be availed of before preferring an appeal before this Tribunal are: (i) an appeal; or (ii) an application for review or representation Therefore, the departmental remedy by way of filing an application of revision is not necessary to be availed of before preferring an appeal in this Tribunal against a final order. The appellant agitated the matter by way of representation, before the Inspector‑General of Police who passed the impugned order dated 27‑12‑1989, whereby the appellant was retired from service. The remedy of preferring a representation is not available under the Rules, while representation under rule 8 the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servant (Appeal), 1982 could only be preferred where no other remedy is provided for. A revision petition could, however, be moved under rule 16‑32 of the Rules and if for argument sake, the representation preferred in this case by the appellant may be treated as a revision petition then the question of limitation will arise. Since the present appeal has not been filed within the prescribed period of 30 days before this Tribunal against the final order dated 5‑11‑1985, passed by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, it is held to be time‑barred. Reliance is placed on 1988 P L C: (C.S.) 165 and 1990 P L C (C.S.)

122. The appellant has not applied for the condonation of the delay involved in this case, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as time‑barred. 1976 P L C (C.S.T.)

60. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal being hopelessly time‑barred is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./98/Sr.A Appeal dismissed.