1990 PLP 987 (SCMR)

Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Report ‑‑‑Expunction‑‑ Civil servant's representation having been rejected by Appellate Authority he filed appeal before Service Tribunal beyond the statutory period, putting forth the explanation that he was removed from service by a, separate order in different proceedings, and he busied himself in avoiding removal order; only after getting it set aside, he approached the Tribunal in the matter of adverse remarks‑‑‑Tribunal considered the explanation un-satisfactory, and dismissed appeal‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Civil servant's appeal was in fact time‑barred and explanation offered by him was not satisfactory‑‑‑When civil servant was actively challenging his removal from service, he should have at the same time continued his remedy against the adverse remarks‑‑‑Service Tribunal's view by its operative order was justified on the facts of the case and no question of law of public importance having arisen, leave to appeal was refused. M. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th February, 1990. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 18th of March, 1989,. whereby his appeal, was dismissed as time‑barred.

2. Adverse remarks were recorded in the Confidential Report of the petitioner for the period 9‑8‑1984 to 31‑12‑1984. He could get no relief from the Department and approached the Service Tribunal for getting the adverse remarks expunged. The order of the appellate Authority rejecting the representation/ appeal of the petitioner was passed on 24‑2‑1986 and he filed the appeal before the Tribunal against it on 19‑8‑1986. The only explanation given for inaction during the, period was that on 27‑2‑1986, the petitioner was removed from service by a separate order in different proceedings and he busied himself in avoiding removal order. Only after getting it set aside, he approached the Tribunal in the matter of adverse remarks. The Tribunal has considered the explanation unsatisfactory. One of its Members showed willingness to condone the delay but the Chairman, whose views under the law prevail, held otherwise and dismissed the appeal as time‑barred.

3. Mr. Munir Peracha, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay was more than satisfactory and that the delay should have been condoned. He also challenged the vires of the law under which the views of the Chairman prevail over those of the Member, other conditions not weighing in the matter.

4. The appeal was in fact time‑barred and the explanation offered by the petitioner was not satisfactory. If the petitioner was actively challenging his removal from the service he should have at the same time continued his remedy against the adverse remarks. The view taken by the Tribunal by its operative order is justified on the facts of the case and no question of law of public importance arises such as may require further examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. A.A./M‑1253/S Leave refused.