1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑‑Nazar Hussain Shah, the appel lant, was punished on 24th January, 1969 with forfeiture of 12 years' approved service as Foot Constable by the S. P., Bahawalpur. On appeal against the order of the S. P., the D. I. G. Police Bahawalpur, enhanced the sentence to dismissal from service with effect from 25th April, 1969. Later, the appellant's appeal to the I. G. Police was also turned down on 27th August, 1969. The charge was that the appellant along with three others of a Police guard on 3rd November, 1968 was found unlawfully absent from sentry duty at the Adam Waha Railway Bridge at 3‑00 p. m. when Ghulam Hussain Butt, D. S. P., carried out a surprise check. We need not go into the merits of the case, because this Tribunal has already given its judgment in the case of one Mohammad Siddique who sought to impugn the same order of the D. I. G. Police, Bahawalpur, as the appellant is assailing in case No. 283/97 of 1974 (Muhammad Siddique v. S. P., Bahawalpur etc.) Muhammad Siddique was one of the other three dismissed vide the impugned order along with the appellant. The tribunal had expressed the opinion in that case that the D. I. G. Police was not within his competence to make the order of enhancement o sentence because the appellant having been recruited prior to 1958 was to be governed by Bahawalpur Police Rules which did not empower the D. I. G. Police to enhance the punishment. We may add that there is a time gap of nearly three years between the instant case and above‑cited judgment which was announced on 18th October, 1976. The appellant had gone into writ in the High Court where the petition was dismissed on 19th April, 1978 with the learned Judge observation that while approaching the Service Tribunal the appellant could rely on the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act or consider the advisability of relying upon the principle underlying that provision. On behalf of the appellant an application for condonation of delay has been made on the basis of this observation of the High Court. We are con vinced that the case was being pursued with due diligence in the High Court and that the appellant earns the benefit of section 14 of the Limita tion Act. In view of the above, the appeal is accepted and the order of the D. I. G. Police dated 25th April, 1969 being void is set aside. Similarly the order dated 27th August, 1969 passed by the I: G. Police being based upon a void order is also set aside. Resultantly the original order of punishment will stand as the appellant has shown nothing to merit interference with the same. Appeal accepted.