1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

6. In view of the above discussion the appellant has obviously a good case on merits. But unfortunately his appeal is hit by limitation and it is hopelessly time‑barred. As pointed out above the appellant had preferred departmental appeal on 16‑3‑1981 against the impugned order dated 18‑2‑1981. As provided in section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1973, he had option to file appeal before this Tribunal without waiting for decision of the departmental appeal. B Admittedly he did not avail this option. Instead he preferred to wait for the decision of the appellate authority. The said decision came on 21st September; 1982. In this connection reference be made to the S&GAD's letter No. E&A (S&GAD) E‑2/PF (64)/78, dated 21st September, 1982 to the Section Officer (Gen.) Zakat, Ushr and S.W. Department. It reads as under: No. E&A(S&GAD)E‑2/PF(64)78 \ Government of Sindh Services & General Administration Department Karachi, dated the 21st September, 1982. To The Section Officer, Zakat, Ushr & S.W. Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi. Subject:‑ Appeal. Reference your U.O. No. PZA/PF/38/81/2405, dated 14th June, 1982 on the subject noted above.

2. Appeal of Mr. F.M. Sohail Afghani, Assistant, has been considered and rejected and it will not be possible for this department to entertain further representation from him on the subject. He may please be informed accordingly. Sd/‑ (S.M. GHIAS) Section Officer (General) for Additional Secretary (Services) Copy to Mr. F.M. Sohail Afghani, Assistant, Zakat, Ushr and Social Welfare Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi. (S.M. GHIAS) Section Officer (General) for Additional Secretary (Services) Ph.512071/27

7. The perusal of the above letter clearly indicates that not only the departmental appeal filed by the appellant was decided but also direction was given to the Section Officer of the Department where the appellant was then posted to inform the latter about the decision. It is also clear from the letter that a copy thereof was endorsed to the appellant himself. Despite the above position, the appellant has raised a plea that he came to know about rejection of his departmental appeal first time by the S&GAD's letter dated 1st December, 1988, addressed to him in reply to his reminder issued on 10‑11‑1988. This seems to be absurd on face of it. The above order of rejection of the appellant's departmental appeal was sent not only to the Department where the appellant was posted but also to the appellant himself. It was rather surprising that neither of them received the order. Unless some mischief had been played, it was simply not delivered to the Secretariat Department. No plea of any such mischief has been raised by the appellant. Assuming that the order sent to both places was misplaced in the transit, still as soon as it was passed, the appellant must have come to know about it through one or the other source particularly when the appellant having served in the S&GAD for quite sometime must have a lot of contacts in the said Department. If this was also not true, it was beyond comprehension that the appellant would silently keep waiting for such a long period of six to seven years without bothering to find out as to what had happened to his departmental appeal. Had he made a little move in this direction, he would have immediately come to know about the result of his appeal even if it was not intimated to him in time.

8. The appellant has produced copies of a number of reminders, obviously in an attempt to impress the Tribunal that he had been vigilant all along. His last reminder dated 10‑11‑1988 had admittedly brought the requisite response from the S&GAD in the form of its letter dated 1st December, 1988. If his latest reminder was replied, so promptly, we see no reason why the S&GAD remained indifferent rather callous with regard to his earlier reminders allegedly sent by him during the period between 1982 and 1988. As disclosed in para.10 of the memo of appeal, the appellant has referred to only one reminder for expediting the decision of his departmental appeal. Accordingly copies of several other reminders produced by him were manifestly afterthought. Their existence was inconsistent with appellant's own plea of having sent a single reminder which admittedly evoked the S&GAD's reply on 6‑12‑1988.

9. From the above discussion we are convinced that the appellant had received the timely intimation about the rejection of his departmental appeal. It seems to us that he did not bother to take further action perhaps because the penalty imposed upon him was minor and he could easily ignore it. It was at later stage that he seemed to have realised the wisdom of challenging the impugned order. Since by the time he made up his mind to come to this Tribunal, the appeal had become time‑barred, he had no alternative but to contrive a device as he actually did that he raised plea that he received the intimation about rejection of his departmental appeal only on 6‑12‑1988. This was simply unbelievable. It was obvious that the appellant made such a crude attempt with a view to have the period of limitation enlarged. We are not prepared to put any premium on his undesirable and ugly act. Since appeal is hopelessly time‑barred, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./219/Sr. S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.