1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IHSANUL HAQ CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The facts relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant in the year 1976 was posted at Faisalabad as Secretary, District Housing Committee. One Mst. Razia was allotted Plot No.1808/D, Peoples Colony, Faisalabad, but she reported back that there is a grave in the plot, therefore, she should be given another plot. This request of the lady was acceded to by the Department and she was allotted plot No.63‑A. Since Martial Law was imposed and Martial Law Administrator issued MII‑23, whereby all allotments made w.e.f. 1‑7‑1970, were cancelled. This decision was conveyed to Mst. Razia vide letter dated 31‑8‑1977.

2. The appellant suggested that with the cancellation of allotment of Plot No.6?‑A the allotment of Plot No.1808/D Peoples Colony Faisalabad automatically stood restored in the name of Mst. Razia. This note of the appellant is dated 14‑12‑1977. The District Housing Officer on the basis of the note, issued vide letter dated 14‑12‑1977, directing the allottee to complete the formalities in respect of Plot No.1808/D. Peoples Colony, Faisalabad.

3. The authorities took exception to this action of the District Housing Officer and held the appellant responsible for this situation, therefore, it was decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. The appellant was accordingly served with a show‑cause notice dated 16‑8‑1979, which is Annexure G. The reply to the show cause notice is appended as Annexure‑H, with the Memo of Appeal.

4. The Respondents were not satisfied with the explanation rendered by the appellant and held him guilty of misconduct and proceeded to award penalty of withholding of increment for three years. The order is dated 13‑10‑1979. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the order of Respondent proceeded to submit a review petition on 6‑4‑1981, but the same was rejected by Respondent being time‑barred. The order reads as under:‑ "Your review petition dated 6‑4‑1981 has been considered by the competent authority and filed being time‑barred." The appellant still not feeling satisfied decided to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal through appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

5. The appeal was filed on 17‑3‑1985, the same was admitted to regular hearing on 30‑4‑1985. The Respondent have contested the appeal, submitted written objections and prayer for dismissal of the same.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and gone through the record of the appeal.

7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that once the review application was entertained the same could not have been rejected as time‑barred. Learned counsel for the appellant in this behalf has referred to rules is and 16 of Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975.

8. On the other hand learned District Attorney has disputed the proposition argued by the learned counsel for the appellant as grossly misconceived for the reasons that neither the review application was entertained nor limitation was condoned. It is argued that the limitation could not be deemed to have been condoned by implication.

9. We have heard both the parties and before proceeding further we would like to refer to proviso to Rule 13 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975, which reads as under:‑ "Provided if the appellate authority is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for extending the time it may entertain the appeal at any time." It is clear from the proviso that the appellate authority is competent to extend time for filing the appeal but there are conditions precedent viz:‑ (1) Firstly, the appellate authority should be conscious of the fact or it should be brought to the notice of the appellate authority that the appeal is time‑barred; (2) Secondly, there should be sufficient ground for extending time; and (3) Thirdly, the appellate authority after applying mind to the justification, had condoned the delay and entertained the appeal.

10. How when we consider the present matter keeping in view these conditions, then the plea of the appellant does not succeed. We have gone through the review application which is attached as Annexure‑H and find that the appellant has made no mention that his review is barred by one year and about 8 months. The appellant had rendered no explanation for the delay in moving the review petition. The failure of the appellant to plead ground for extension of time is sufficient to, disentitle him of the discretionary relief. On the one hand the appellant, did not approach the Authority with clean hands and on the other hand how limitation could have been extended in the absence of I explanation on the part of the appellant. We, also find that the Authority has not considered at all whether there is sufficient cause rather there was no occasion because the appellant has not rendered any explanation. We further conclude that the review Petition was never entertained.

11. We are in agreement with the argument of the learned District Attorney that merely sending for comments without applying conscious mind to the merits, does not mean that the appeal has been entertained and limitation condoned. The limitation cannot be deemed to have been condoned by implication.

12. The upshot of the discussion is 'that we find nothing wrong with the impugned order dated 17‑2‑1985. The review application was rightly dismissed as time‑barred. The appeal is dismissed with costs. M.Y.H/156/Sr.P Appeal dismissed.