2002 SCMR 918 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Appeal before Service Tribunal‑‑‑Delay, condonation of‑‑ Authority passed final order against civil servant on 17‑12‑1999 but he filed appeal before Service Tribunal after 60 days alongwith application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908‑‑‑Tribunal was not convinced with the grounds advanced fox condonation of delay, because civil servant was in full knowledge of the facts‑‑‑Civil servant also failed to satisfy the Tribunal on the point that order dated 17‑12‑1999 was received by him on 18‑1‑2000 i.e. with one month's delay‑Tribunal dismissed the appeal being time‑barred‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Impugned order would show that Service Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal being time‑barred‑‑‑Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal in circumstances. Akhlaq A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 19th June, 2001. SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.‑‑‑--Leave is sought against the order of the Sindh Service Tribunal, at Karachi, dated 15‑1‑2001, passed in Appeal No. 36 of 2000.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was serving as an Inspector in Excise and Taxation Department, was booked by Anti‑Corruption Department in a case, and after his conviction by the Summary Military Court he was dismissed from service on 27‑11‑1978. Consequently, the petitioner's conviction was set aside by D.M.L.A. vide Order No.AQ/KL/306/64/D, dated 29‑12‑1985 and he resumed his duties on 9‑1‑1986. Thereafter, he approached the Secretary to Government of Sindh, Excise and Taxation Department, Karachi, through an appeal, which is at pages 44‑45 of the paper book, and its last paragraph reads as under: The appellant under duress and coercion executed such order taking in the terms, desired by the Department the aforesaid undertaking was given under duress as such does not constitute wave of legal rights of the appellant to claim benefits he cannot be deprived of the same.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner time and again was required to pin‑point on which date this appeal was filed and what was the result of the appeal, but he was unable to point out as to when this appeal was dismissed, even he was not in a position to point out if any order was passed on it, inasmuch as he was not able to submit the statement which, according to him, was obtained from the petitioner under duress and coercion.

4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also minutely gone through the record. It would be pertinent to refer to the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which reads as under:‑‑- From the perusal of the documents and Annexures supplied by him no cause of action could be worked out, besides the final order was passed in this case on 17‑12‑1999 and the appellant filed this appeal after about 60 days hence it was hit by section 5 of Limitation Act for which he filed a condonation application. The application was a heard by us on 15‑1‑2000 and found that the grounds advanced by him are not convincing because he was in full knowledge of the facts. However, he claims that the letter dated 17‑12‑1999 was issued and delivered to him on 18‑1‑2000 after delay of one month with the intention that he should not get remedy from higher judicial, forum on the ground of limitation. However, when put to proof, he was unable to satisfy the Tribunal on this point. Thus, we were unable to accede to his request and admit this appeal being time‑barred was dismissed in limine for the foregoing reasons.

5. The above order would show that the Service Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal, being time‑barred. In our considered view, this petition is without merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed and leave is declined. S.A.K./M-343/S Leave declined.