1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. 4--Appeal against adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Report tiled after lapse of two years of disposal of appellant's representation, was barred by time- Last date for filing the appeal being 18-6-1980, appeal filed on 1-4-1989 was thus not competent--Second representation which was not even competent, filed by appellant before Authority in order to get time would be of no avail to appellant- Appellant having failed to give cogent reasons for delay his appeal would be deemed to be grossly time-barred--Appeal being clearly time-barred and there being no application for condonation of delay, same was dismissed as hit by laches. M.A. Riaz for Appellant. Date of hearing: 5th June, 1989. Muhammad Rafiq Bhalli, Forest Ranger, now working as Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Sheikhupura, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the impugned orders dated 24-8-1983, 18-5-1986 and 12-2-1989 passed by respondents. The appellant has impleaded the Chief Conservator of Forests (P&E) Punjab Central Zone, Lahore, and Secretary to Government of Punjab, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department, Lahore, as respondents. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders aforementioned be set aside and adverse remarks recorded in the A.C.R. for the period from 15-2-1982 to 4-9-1982 conveyed through letter dated 24-8-1983 be expunged. He filed a representation on 22-7-1984, before respondent No. 1, which was accepted to the extent that the remarks recorded by the countersigning officer were expunged whereas the remaining remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer, were allowed to stand. Another representation dated 7-11-1988, was riled on behalf of the appellant before respondent No. 2, which too was rejected on 12-2-1989, on the ground that there was no justification for second appeal. The instant appeal was fled on 1-4-1989. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the preliminary issue i.e. the question of limitation at length. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the instant appeal filed before the Tribunal on 1-4-1989 is well in time from the aforementioned order dated 12-2-1989, passed by the respondent on the second representation of the appellant. 3. We have given our anxious thought to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. On careful perusal of the facts incorporated in the appeal, it is very much apparent from the file of the appeal that the last date of filing the appeal was 18-6-1980, but the appellant failed to file the same within the stipulated period. The first representation of the appellant was disposed of on 18-5-1980 by respondent No. 2 and in order to get time he filed another representation, which was not even competent and that too was after a lapse of two years. In fact it was the appellant's duty to immediately file the present appeal against the said impugned order soon after the disposal of the appellant's representation within the prescribed period of limitation. Since the appellant has failed to give cogent reasons, we therefore, hold that the appeal in question is grossly time-barred. After careful consideration of the case, we are of the opinion that regardless of the facts of the appeal, the appeal is time-barred and since no application for condonation of delay has been made, we dismiss it in limine. A.A./203/Sr. P Appeal dismissed.