P L C (C (PLP)

GULBAZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN)‑‑Mr. Muhammad Aslam, appellant was issued Explanation letter from Narang Sub Division, Office Memo. No; 1330 dated 21‑4‑1993. He did not submit defence reply. Show cause notice was issued to him on 17‑8‑1993. He submitted reply to the show‑cause notice on 30‑9‑1993. He was given personal hearing by the competent Authority on 30‑9‑1993. The competent Authority imposed a penalty of Rs.4,93,124 upon the appellant.

2. The appellant was issued another show‑cause notice from Narang Sub‑Division on 10‑2‑1993. The appellant submitted defence reply on 8‑4‑1993: He was issued show‑cause notice on 17‑8‑1993. He submitted reply to the show‑cause notice on 30‑9‑1993. He was given personal hearing on 30‑9‑1993. After considering the relevant material, the competent Authority passed an order of reduction to a lower post for three years, on 30‑9‑1993.

3. The appellant was issued another Explanation letter from Sheikhupura vide office Memo. No. 4159, dated 21‑12‑1

92. He was issued show‑cause notice on 3‑3‑1994. The appellant replied to the show‑cause notice. He was given personal hearing on 7‑7‑1994. He was found guilty of the charges levell against him and he was dismissed from service vide order dated 6‑8‑1994.

4. The appellant was a civil servant for the purposes of Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973. His remedy was available before the Federal Service Tribunal and not before any other forum. In spite of having remedy before the Federal Service Tribunal, he filed petition before N.I.R.C. on 10‑8‑1994. He was aggrieved of two orders passed by the competent Authority on 30‑9‑1993 whereby a recovery of RS.4,93,124 and reduction to the lower post for a period of three years, was ordered. The order of dismissal was passed on 6‑8‑1.994 but he did not challenge the said order in the petition filed before N.I.R.C. Petition before the single Bench of N.I.R.C. was accepted on 9‑2‑1995. The WAPDA filed appeal before the Full Bench of N.I.R.C. against the said order on 9‑3‑1995. The appeal of WAPDA was accepted. The appellant had earlier filed departmental appeal against the dismissal order of 6‑8‑1994, on 26‑9‑1994 which was not responded. The appellant submitted the present appeal on 2‑2‑1998 alongwith the application for condonation of delay.

5. Objections were filed by the respondent department. It was vehemently urged that the present appeal was hopelessly time‑barred and there was no reasonable or satisfactory ground for condoning this‑ inordinate delay. It was also urged that the appellant was civil servant and he did not approach the Labour Court in good faith, hence, he is not entitled to condonation of delay. As regards the merits, it was stated that the appellant was guilty of serious misconduct and had‑ misappropriated huge amount for which he had been validly punished by the competent Authority. It was also submitted that the appellant was given all opportunities for defending himself. The respondents placed on record several explanation letters issued to the appellant. According to the respondent department he was rightly punished and proper penalty imposed.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant was a civil) servant at the, relevant time. Legally he could not approach the N.I.R.C. His remedy was before the ‑ Federal Service Tribunal. Where a person seeks remedy before a wrong forum he is not entitled to the condonation of delay unless he proves that he had sought remedy before the wrong forum in good faith. Being a civil servant, he sought remedy before a wrong forum. There is nothing on record to show that he sought remedy in good faith. Delay in filing the appeal can be condoned only when the appellant explains delay reasonably and satisfactorily. The impugned order had been passed on 6‑8‑1994.' The appellant had filed departmental appeal on 26‑9‑1994 after waiting for ninety days and not having received any reply to the departmental appeal, he could seek remedy within next thirty days before the Federal Service Tribunal. In the present case, the appellant filed petition before the N.I.R.C. even before filing the departmental appeal. He had filed petition before the' N.I.R.C. on 10‑8‑1994 whereas he filed departmental appeal on 26‑9‑1994. The appeal filed by the respondent department was accepted on 8‑7‑1997, by the Full Bench of NIRC. Since the remedy ‑vas not available to the appellant before N.I.R.C., the appellant is not entitled to the condonation of delay. His petition for condonation of delay is, accordingly, dismissed. The impugned order had been passed on 6‑8‑1994 against which the appellant filed departmental appeal on 26‑9‑1994. The appellant could file appeal before the Tribunal the latest on 25‑1‑1995. The present, appeal is hopelessly time‑barred and is dismissed leaving the parties 'to bear their own costs.

7. Parties be informed. H.B.T:/332/F.S.T. Appeal dismissed.