2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JAVED IQBAL, J. ‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19‑12‑2000 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and order dated 17‑7‑1986 has been kept intact whereby the petitioner was removed from service.

2. Heard Razi Uddin (petitioner) at length and record perused. It is an admitted feature of the case that the departmental appeal of the petitioner was decided vide order dated. 27‑11‑1994 by the Director General, Excise, and Taxation Punjab copy whereof was made available to the petitioner on 4‑12‑1994. The petitioner approached the Service Tribunal on 1‑7‑2000 after an inordinate delay of six long years that too without any plausible justification. It is worth‑mentioning that the departmental appeal of the petitioner was also barred by time.

3. All the contentions agitated before this Court have been dilated upon and decided in a comprehensive manner by the learned Service Tribunal vide judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:‑ "

3. It is evident from the Head Note of the Memo. of Appeal that the order passed by respondent No. l dated 27‑11‑1994 was received by the appellant on 4‑12‑1994. The instant appeal was filed on 1‑7‑2000, i.e. after about 6 years. The ground for condonation of delay is not plausible or convincing. There is no document to indicate that the appellant was declared insolvent by the Court of competent jurisdiction or he was in jail or he faces litigation. He not only preferred departmental appeal against order dated 17‑7‑1986 with an inordinate delay, but he repeated, the same indolence while invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal on 1‑7‑2000. If it is presumed that the original order was illegal or void, even then, there was no escape from the prescribed period of limitation. I am supported by 1994 SCMR 1033. The appellant was well aware, as admitted in the Memo. of Appeal that the appellate order was passed in the year 1994. He went into deep slumber and woke up rubbing his eyes in the year 2000 when sufficient water had already flowed under the bridges. The grounds for condonation of delay are nothing but lame pretexts and I am not inclined to condone inordinate delay of 6 years. Appeal is, therefore, hopelessly barred by time. Same is dismissed. Record be consigned to the Record Room."

4. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Service Tribunal being well‑founded hardly warrants any interference. It is a case of individual grievance and no question of law of public importance is involved in the matter on the basis whereof leave could be granted. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./R‑87/SC Leave refused.