1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. Consequently the respondent‑department reconstituted the second Medical Board consisting of persons who were not the members of the first Medical Board as required under F.R. 10‑A(c).

4. The appellant was examined by the Board, however, was not considered fit for retention in service. Accordingly, he was informed vide letter dated 28‑8 1995. The appellant being unsatisfied with the action of the respondent department has come again to this Tribunal through the present appeal alleging that the direction of the Tribunal have not yet been implemented.

5. Raja Muhammad Asghar Khan, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant whereas the respondent‑department was represented by Mr. Khalid Abbas Khan, Federal Counsel, alongwith M/s. Ghayyur Abbas, Assistant, Establishment Division, Mr. Muhammad Shabbir‑ur‑Rehman, GSO‑III (Civilian) and Mr. Muhammad Ramzan, Superintendent, G.H.Q. as a Departmental Representatives.

6. Pleading the case of the appellant, the learned counsel stated that although the Tribunal was pleased to remand the case to the departmental authority for re‑examination of his case under F.R. 10‑A(c), but the department failed to do the needful, as no reviewing Board was constituted in consultation with, D.‑G. Health, but the case was referred to the same authority. Secondly that no findings of the second Medical Board, were conveyed to the appellant, as such he was condemned unheard. He further alleged, that proceedings of the Board were influenced by the opinion of the earlier Board.

7. The Federal Counsel, on the other hand resisted the appeal and vehemently rebutted the allegations as levelled by the counsel for the appellant against respondent‑department. He informed that in compliance with the orders contained in the judgment dated 31‑5‑1995 of the Tribunal, a second Medical Board was convened on 27th July, 1995 which consisted of persons who were not members of the first Medical Board, as required under F.R. 10‑A(c). The appellant again was not considered fit for retention in service, by the second Board too, and the appellant was accordingly informed vide letter, dated 28th August, 1995. As such, the allegation of the appellant that his Review Medical Board was not arranged as required under F.R. 10‑A(c) and not new members included does not hold water.

8. Yet another point of limitation has been raised vide comments. It has been asserted that the present appeal was barred by time as it was preferred against the decision communicated to the appellant on 28th August, 1995, whereas the appeal had been filed during December, 1995.

9. We have heard the parties at length and have gone through the documents available on the file.

10. We find that, in compliance with the direction of the Tribunal, a second Medical Board was constituted of the members who were not included in the previous Medical Board. The appellant was examined and found unfit for any service. As such the contention of appellant that, it was the same Board is not correct. The appellant also alleged that the Board constituted had the same members. The respondent side produced a document at Bar, which showed that the members of the second Medical Board were different from that of the first Medical Board, as such his allegation was not correct. The appellant also, objected, that such Board was not constituted under the direction of the D.‑G. Health, the respondent party produced at Bar a document which indicated that such power of D.‑G. Health were delegated to the Military Medical Directorate, as such, that objection of appellant stood rebutted.

11. The perusal of the documents show, that appellant was communicated medical report of the second Medical Board which although denied by the appellant, was supplied to him on 28th August, 1995. However, he filed the appeal (present one) by post which reached the Tribunal on 26th December, 1995, the same is endorsed on the memo. of the appeal.

12. As a matter of fact, he should have approached the Tribunal within a period of one month i.e. up to 29th September, 1995. However, he filed his appeal before the Tribunal much after that, as such it is also hit by time limitation.

13. The upshot of the above discussion is that, the direction of the Tribunal stands fully implemented. The appeal is also hit by time limitation. For these we do not accept it accordingly it is dismissed, on both the counts. No order as to costs. Parties be informed. H.B.T./57/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.