1979 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(b) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑- S. 8‑Limitation‑Condonation of delay‑Each day requires explana tion‑Writ petition pending before High Court on date of promulga tion of Act‑Stands abated by operation of law on same date Appellant kept waiting for abatement order and even thereafter applying for copy of said order after fourteen days‑No explanation offered Condonation prayer, in circumstances, rejected and appeal dismissed as grossly time‑barred. PLD1976SC195tel. M. SALEIM CHAUDHARY (CHAIRMAN).‑The appellant at the relevant time was a Patwari in Bahawalnagar District. He was charge‑sheeted on 8th December, 1966 by the Collector, raising five charges against him. He submitted reply dated 24‑12‑1966 to charge‑sheet. Mr. Jewan Khan, Assistant Commissioner was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. He submitted his enquiry report dated 7‑3‑1967 holding four out of five charges as proved against the appellant. The Collector agreeing with the enquiry report issued a show‑cause notice dated 10‑4‑1967 to the appellant for removal or major penalty and after giving personal hearing, passed the dismissal order dated 27‑6‑1968. Vide appellate order of the Commissioner dated 20-9‑1968 his appeal was rejected and the order of the Collector was upheld. The appellant submitted a revision petition before the Board of Revenue on 31‑12‑1968 which was rejected on merits on 29‑7‑1969. There after, he submitted a review petition before the Member Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 18‑3‑1971 on the ground that there was no provision for review in the case of the appellant. The appellant also filed a Writ Petition No. 309/5 of 1972 in the High Court which was declared to have abated by an order of that Court dated 8‑7‑1975. The appellant applied for a copy of the order on 22‑7‑1975 and received it on the same day and the present appeal was filed before us on 28‑7‑1975. This raises the question of limitation.

2. Application for condonation of delay has also been filed in which it is merely stated that the writ petition of the appellant was disposed of on 8th July, 1975 and that the appeal has been filed without any deliberate or inten tional delay on the part of the appellant.

3. The aforesaid application apparently merely seeks to explain the delay from 22‑7‑1975 to 28‑7‑1975 and by a subsequent application dated 26‑6‑1978 it is further stated before us that the appellant was resident of Bahawalnagar while the counsel was located at Lahore and it took 8/9 days between the two to prepare and file the appeal before this Tribunal.

4. This appeal has been filed under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal .Act, 1974 under which an appeal is entertainable against any final order whether original or appellate made by a departmental authority within 30 days of the communication of the same to the aggrieved civil servant or within six months of the establishment of the appropriate Tribunal, which ever is later. It may be observed that vide proviso (c) to the same section, no appeal is competent before this Tribunal against an order and decision of a departmental authority made at any time before the Ist July, 1969. 1n the instant case before us the appellate order of the Commissioner was passed on 20‑9‑1968 which falls earlier than the crucial date Ist July, 1969. However, revision petition before the Board of Revenue was rejected on 29‑7‑1969 and we are not prepared to go beyond that date for the purpose s of Limitation. Thereafter the appellant engaged himself in altogether unnecessary and un‑called .for remedies, i.e., first review petition was filed before the Member Board of Revenue, which was not competent and dismissed on that ground alone. Vide Section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act all suits, appeals and applications relating to any matter within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal pending in any court immediately before the establishment of this Tribunal, (which .was established on 22nd July, 1974), stood abated by the operation of law with effect from the said date and the proposition is well established vide Supreme Court case cited as P L D 1976 S C

195. The appellant obviously took it easy and waited for the abatement order from the High Court and took fourteen days even to apply for a copy of the abatement order of that Court. It is well‑established proposition of law that in case of limitation each day of delay has to be satisfactorily explained and the explanation of delay rendered in this case singularly lacks in any such detail or gives sufficient and good ground for condonation of delay. The appeal is accordingly rejected as grossly time, barred. There is however no order as to costs. Appeal rejected