1994 PLP 2274 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑R.4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212 (3)‑‑‑Misconduct‑‑‑Removal from service on charge of misconduct‑‑‑Civil servant's departmental appeal was allegedly not decided within three months‑‑‑In case of non‑disposal of departmental appeal, civil servant could have filed appeal before Service Tribunal within 120 days‑‑‑Limitation for filing appeal before Service Tribunal expired on 12‑1‑1994 but civil servant filed appeal on 2‑3‑1994 i.e. about one month and twenty days after the expiry of limitation‑‑‑Civil servant had failed to show sufficient cause for the delay in filing appeal‑‑‑Contrary to civil servant's alleged contention with regard to non‑disposal of his departmental appeal within statutory period, civil servant himself had filed copy of registered letter of the department dated 17‑10‑1993, communicating him that his appeal dated 14‑9‑1993 had been examined and that earlier decision of his removal from service was maintained‑‑‑Civil servant had to file appeal before Service Tribunal within thirty days from such order dated 17‑10‑1993‑‑‑Civil servant's appeal filed on 2‑3‑1994, being beyond limitation was rightly dismissed by Service Tribunal‑‑‑No case was made out for interference in the order in question of Service Tribunal 4 ‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th August, 1994. MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 20‑4‑1994 whereby his appeal was dismissed in limine being hopelessly barred by time.

2. In the year 1993 the petitioner was working as Store House Assistant in Pakistan Navy. He absented himself from duty for 243 days. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was removed from service on the charge of unauthorised absence. He filed departmental appeal on 14‑9‑1993 before Commander Logistics, Karachi which was dismissed on 17‑10‑1993. The petitioner was informed accordingly on 17‑10‑1993 through registered letter. On 2‑3‑1994, he filed appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed by the Tribunal on 20‑4‑1994.

3. Admitting that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal was barred by time, the learned counsel maintained that the delay was not wilful and was due to the inability of the petitioner to obtain the final decision of the appellate authority in the departmental appeal filed by him.

4. We do not see any valid reasons to disagree with the reasons given in the impugned judgment. The petitioner was removed from service on 14‑9‑1993. The appeal was not decided in three months. So, on 2‑3‑1994 he filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Law on the subject of limitation is very much clear. In case of non‑disposal of the departmental appeal, the petitioner was supposed to file an appeal before the Tribunal within 120 days and the limitation for filing appeal before the Tribunal expired on 12‑1‑1994 but he filed appeal before the Tribunal on 2‑3‑1994 i.e. about one month and twenty days after the expiry of the limitation. He has failed to show sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the instant case, there was no question of obtaining the decision for the appellate authority because the petitioner could file appeal even before decision of his departmental appeal.

5. Strangely enough, even contrary to his above submission with regard to non‑disposal of his departmental appeal within the statutory period, the petitioner himself has filed a copy, of the registered letter of the department dated 17‑10‑1993 (page 28 of the paper‑book) communicating him that his appeal dated 14‑9‑1993 has been examined and that the earlier decision of removal of the petitioner was upheld. This fact was also taken note of by the learned ;"Tribunal in its judgment. The petitioner had to file the appeal before the Tribunal within thirty days from this order dated 17‑10‑1993. Subsequent applications after passing of the final order by the departmental authority do not stop the limitation.

6. No case is made out. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed. A.A. /J‑118/S. Leave refused.