2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD AFZAL (MEMBER-I).

This is fresh appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant was confronted with question of limitation, as prima facie, this appeal was considered time-barred.

2. As per facts, appellant challenges the orders dated 19-12-2003 vide which she, who is ex-Assistant Professor in the Education Department was awarded penalty of removal from service w.e.f. 9-4-2001 on grounds of continued wilful absence from the same date i.e. absence of about two years and 9 months. Appellant failed to file departmental appeal within time. She filed departmental appeal before the appellate authority on 20-4-2004 which was not entertained being time-barred as per intimation dated 7-5-2004 addressed to the appellant. Appellant, apparently perceiving the general trend of seeking political intervention, approached the Chief Minister. While the appellant failed to get any directive from the Chief Minister for condonation of delay in filing departmental appeal before the departmental appellate authority, she obtained a directive dated 26-7-2006 which contained the following orders of Chief Minister: "Chief Minister has been pleased to give special permission enabling her (appellant) to file an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal to seek remedy under the law, in view of peculiar exigency and medical circumstances prevailing in U.K."

3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that this directive from the Chief Minister may be considered as an administrative order regarding condonation of delay for filing appeal before this Tribunal and appeal may, therefore, be admitted for regular hearing.

4. I am afraid, I cannot see eye to eye with learned counsel for the appellant. PST is not the executive forum it is judicial forum and no civil servant can get delay in recoursing to this Tribunal condoned through any directive from the worthy Chief Minister. It is the exclusive jurisdiction of this Tribunal to condone or not to condone delay in accordance with circumstances and merits of individual cases. I find that the appellant had remained wilfully absent from duty for about three years and was staying abroad. This fact also explains the delay on her part in filing departmental appeal which was not entertained by the concerned departmental authority as being time-barred. I find that limitation shall begin to run from the date the impugned orders, dated 19-12-2003 were passed. Obviously, this service appeal is barred by extreme delay of two years and about 9 months. I do not agree with learned counsel for the appellant that this delay could be condoned on the basis of any directive from the worthy Chief Minister. Appeal is found grossly time-barred and the same is accordingly dismissed. (A copy of these orders shall be sent to the concerned respondents for information by Registrar). H.B.T.127/PST Appeal dismissed.