1995SCMR16 (PLP)

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑This appeal by special leave is from the judgment dated 24‑10‑1991 of the Federal Service Tribunal.

2. The appellant was a Line Superintendent under the respondent Authority and was at the relevant time posted in Faisalabad. There was an allegation against him that he had been negligent in the performance of his duties which had led to shortage of ACSR `Dog' conductors. Disciplinary proceedings were taken against him and as a consequence thereof, by an order dated 6‑3‑1985 he was directed to make up the loss in the sum of Rs.1,25,000 which the Authority had suffered. The said amount was to be recovered by deductions from his pay. He filed a departmental appeal against the penalty imposed upon him on 24‑3‑1985. The appeal remained unattended whereupon he moved the Wafaqi Mohtasib in the matter. Under the direction given by the Wafaqi Mohtasib the appellate authority took up the consideration of the appeal and by an order dated 30‑9‑1986 rejected the same. The rejection was conveyed to him on 21‑11‑1986. The appellant filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal on 4‑12‑1986.

2. The learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the appellant on the ground of limitation. In support of its view it has observed: "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. MA. Shahida, Advocate who appeared on behalf of the respondents WAPDA has raised ‑ preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of appeal and also limitation. We find that the contention of the learned counsel is correct. The impugned order was passed on 6‑3‑1985. The same was rejected on 30‑9‑1986. The present appeal having been filed on 4‑12‑1986 is hopelessly barred by limitation. There is no application for the condonation of delay on the file and as such in the absence of such application we are clearly of the view that the appeal is not maintainable and also barred by limitation. Our view is further supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as SCMR 1987/92."

3. It seems that section 4, Service Tribunals Act, prescribes two periods of limitation for preferring appeals to the Tribunal. An aggrieved civil servant can come to the Tribunal after his appeal or representation before the department has been disposed of, or, he can wait for the decision on his departmental appeal for 90 days and then file an appeal before the Tribunal without waiting any further; in this case the appellant chose to wait for the final decision on his departmental appeal and he filed the appeal before the Tribunal within 30 days of the communication of the order of the rejection of his appeal. It is to be noticed that even though his appeal was rejected on 30‑9‑1986 the order of rejection vas not communicated to him till 21‑11‑1986 and he preferred the appeal before the Tribunal on 4‑12‑1986. In the circumstances his appeal could not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Accordingly, we accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Tribunal and direct that the appellant's appeal should be disposed of in accordance with law. A.A./Z‑174/S Case remanded.