1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Boota v. The State and others 1988 P L C (C.S.) 165 rel. Mazhar Ali Chohan for Appellant. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, Addl. A.-G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th July, 1990. IMTIAZ RASOOL (MEMBER).

This case relates to Appeal No. 7 of 1990 filed by Abdul Wahid, Constable 377 of the Sindh Police Department, against order of his removal from service. The factual background of the case is that the appellant while working in the Police Department was removed from service on the charge of misconduct vide order dated 22-12-1988, of Senior Superintendent of Police, Sukkur. He went in appeal against the said order to D.I.-G.P., Sukkur Range who rejected the said appeal by his order dated 8-7-1989. Instead of challenging this order of the Appellate Authority before this Tribunal, the appellant went in revision to I: G. Police, Sindh. This revision application was -rejected by I.-G. Police vide his order dated 9-12-1989. The present service appeal has been filed against the said order of the I.-G.P.

2. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Mazhar Ali Chohan the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.-G. We have also gone through the relevant record/documents.

3. The appellant has obviously invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973. As required by this provision of the law, appeal is to be instituted against the final order: whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority. Therefore, the question that falls for our determination is whether the order of the D.I.-G. rejecting the departmental appeal preferred by the appellant or that of I.-G. Police dismissing the appellant's revision application, was final appellate order within the meaning of the aforesaid section of the Act. As provided in section 23 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, right of only one appeal or review is available to any civil servant aggrieved by any departmental order. No discrimination well therefore permissible in case of the Police personnel. The appellant having exhausted his right of one appeal by filing appeal before the D.I.-G., was to approach this Tribunal in service appeal. He, however, chose to agitate the matter at the departmental level, by filing revision before the I.-G.P. In the meantime period of limitation which was to be computed from the date of D.I.-G.'s order expired and this appeal which had been filed on 8-1-1990 became time-barred by about five months. The appellant has, however, moved for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal on the ground that the limitation started from date of rejection of the Revision by I.-G. Police, Sindh and not from the D.I.-G.P: s order. This argument is inconsistent with the view taken by this Tribunal in several cases. For example in the case reported as Muhammad Boota v. The State etc. 1988 P L C (C.S.) 165, this Tribunal took the view that right of only one departmental appeal was available and as such after deciding of any departmental appeal if the matter was taken before another departmental forum, the time spent thereon could not be condoned, for calculation of the limitation period. Thus to be consistent with the view already taken by this Tribunal in several cases, we hold that this appeal is hopelessly time-barred. Accordingly, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./290/Sr. S Appeal dismissed.