1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act (XXII of 1975)

S. 4--Appeal--Limitation--Appeal--No benefit can be given for time spent before wrong forum. Sardar Rafique Mahmood for Appellant: Muhammad Yousaf a retired Police Constable has preferred this appeal under section 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against his removal from service. He has impleaded the Inspector-General of Police, Deputy Inspector-General of Police and Superintendent of Police Reserve and Rangers Muzaffarabad as respondents. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was serving as a Police Constable in Police Station Leepa when he was transferred to Muzaffarabad. The appellant applied for grant of leave that but for his ill-health he is unable to join the duty. The Superintendent of Police vide Order Book No. 123, dated 29-4-1985 removed him out of service. The appellant submitted an appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police who rejected the same vide Order Book No. 136, dated 13-8-1985. The appellant thereafter, moved two representations for his reinstatement into the service before Inspector-General of Police but both were turned down vide Order No. 1868/90, dated 8-2-1990. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned orders the appellant has preferred to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 4 of the Act. This appeal was made over to me by the learned Chairman of this Tribunal. I have heard the preliminary arguments and gone through the relevant record. The appellant was dismissed from the service on account of his wilful absence from the duty. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the absence from the duty was an offence under the Police Act and if for argument sake the appellant was found guilty, he should have been penalised under the provisions of the aforesaid Act and not under rule 16.1 of the Police Rules. In my opinion this plea is not tenable, as the punishment of dismissal can be awarded under rule 16.2 of the Rules referred to for the gravest acts of misconduct. The appellant was awarded the punishment of dismissal vide impugned order dated 29-4-1985 and the impugned order passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police on 13-8-1985 on his appeal was final under rule 16.29 (2) of Police Rules. Under section 4 of the Act, an aggrieved civil servant can file an appeal against a final order before the Tribunal within the stipulated period of 30 days. In the instant case, the appellant instead of preferring an appeal against the final order before this Tribunal moved two representations before Inspector?-General of Police for his reinstatement into the service. If the representations are treated as the revision petitions under rule 16.32 of the Police Rules even then the appellant could not be given the benefit of the period he spent in pursuing the petition before the Inspector-General of Police because under section 4 of the Act the remedy of revision petition is not essential to be availed of before invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It was open for the appellant after the final order to seek departmental remedy by way of revision petition or to file an appeal before this Tribunal within the stipulated period. The appellant of his own choice preferred the revision petition against the said final order, hence the present appeal against the final order dated 13-8-1985 has not been filed within the prescribed period of 30 days. It is, therefore, held that this appeal preferred on 10-3-1990 is hopelessly time-barred, especially when no application has been made under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of the delay involved in this case. Reliance is placed on 1988 P L C (C.S.) 165, 1990 P L C (C.S.) 122, unreported cases of this Tribunal entitled Missri Khan v. Inspector-?General of Police and others decided on 28-2-1990, Aziz-ur-Rehman v. Inspector-?General of Police and others decided on 25-3-1990 and 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./101/Sr.A ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.