1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 23rd August, 1994. JUDGMNET NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).‑‑‑This appeal was filed by appellant Abdul Khaliq, against the order of his dismissal from service passed on 30‑6‑1990. The appeal was heard and decided by this Tribunal vide judgment-dated 29‑12‑1992 whereby the dismissal was converted into that of stoppage of two increments and the order of dismissal was set aside with all consequential benefits.

2. Against the above judgment of the Service Tribunal, the respondents went in appeal to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. 'The Supreme Court remanded the case vide its order dated 3‑5‑1994 with following observations; "(2) On behalf of Water and Power Development Authority, learned counsel stated that he was unable to appear before the Tribunal on the date of hearing, and had sent an application for adjournment, which was not granted and hearing took place in his absence. In that connection affidavit is filed by the learned counsel in this Court which is on the record and in it this fact is mentioned that counsel was in Karachi in connection with his professional duties and was unable to reach Lahore on the date when hearing of appeal took place before the Tribunal and he sent application for adjournment, which was rejected. (3) Another objection raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that service appeal was barred by 106 days and such objection with regard to limitation had been taken in the written statement filed before the Tribunal but it received no attention from the Tribunal as is apparent from the judgment. It is submitted Lat waiver of question of limitation is not permitted and duty is cast upon the Court determine the question limitation first. In support of the proposition, reliance is placed on the case of Hakim Muhammad B a and another v. Habib Ahmed and others PLD 1985 SC 153). (4) For aforementioned reasons, feeling satisfied with the contention's raised, we grant leave and convert this petition into appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and remand the case to the Tribunal for determination of question of limitation and disposal on merits afresh after hearing the parties."

3. On remand from the Supreme Court, the case was again fixed for hearing on 23‑8‑1994. We have heard both the parties and gone through the record. The objection raised by the respondents about the limitations is quite valid. It is clear from the face of the appeal that the appeal was hopelessly time‑barred. It is admitted fact that the appellant was dismissed from service by order dated 30‑6‑1990. He submitted departmental appeal on 21‑8‑1990 which was rejected by order dated 14‑10‑1990. It is admitted by the appellant that rejection order was delivered at his residence while he was at Karachi. The plea that appellant was at Karachi and could not file appeal within time, is no ground for condonation of such a long delay, when the appellant came to this Tribunal on 2‑3‑1991 after about 139 days of rejection order dated 14‑10‑1990. Thus the appeal, in our view, is patently time‑barred and requires to be dismissed on this ground only. Time is of essence in service matter. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case reported in PLD 1 ‑SC 731 (Government of Punjab v. Dr. (Mrs.) Shamim Raza Bukhari and others). Another case in Fazal Elahi Siddiqi v. Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and 2 others LD 990 SC 692) wherein it is held "Service Tribunal should press into service question ort limitation strictly‑‑ Court is not bound to examine a case on merits, even though the same may be patently barred by limitation under the relevant law. ‑‑ The factum that in the instant case the Tribunal has dismissed the appellant's appeal on the ground of limitation without touching upon the merits of the case, does not render the order under appeal legally infirm, as to warrant interference by this Court".

4. In view of the above, it is not necessary to touch upon the merits of the case, as it is hopelessly time‑barred. As such the appeal is dismissed as time barred:

5. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./1043/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.