Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. 113 of 1976, decided on 6th June, 1979.
‑‑ S. 4‑Limitation‑Order impugned appealable departmentally within 30 days‑Limitation for appeal before Tribunal ninety days plus thirty days and to run from date of impugned order‑Appeal filed after expiry of 120 days‑Time‑barred.
R. E. Abdul Bari v: Inspector‑General of Registration and another C. P. S. L. A. No. K‑31 of 1978 (unreported) rel.
Rasool Bux Unar for Appellant.
This is an appeal against the termination of service of the appellant by order dated 24th July, 1976 said to have been received by the appellant on 3rd August, 1976 through the Civil Surgeon under his letter dated 27th July, 1976.
The appellant was working as Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital, Sukkur. A false certificate regarding a person showing him to be an indoor patient for certain period was issued under the signatures of the appellant as well as other officers connected with the issue of the certificate. The person who was said to be indoor patient was involved in a criminal case and in fact he had never remained in the hospital. The appellant was charge‑sheeted. His explanation was called. The explanation was found unsatisfactory and therefore he was removed from service under the orders of the Chief Minister. He made representation but since no reply was received till the expiry of 90 days the present appeal was filed.
The appeal was opposed on various grounds.
A preliminary objection was taken that the appeal was time barred as it was not filed within 120 days of the order whereby the appellant was dismissed from service. There is a considerable force in this contention. The impugned order was passed on 24th July, 1976 whereas the present appeal was filed on 23rd December, 1976. Thus the appeal was filed 141 days after the impugned order and excluding 120 days the appeal was time barred by 21 days.
In order to elaborate the question of limitation it may be stated that the appellant was required to file a departmental appeal against the original order within one month and if after waiting for 90 days his appeal was not decided he was required to approach this Tribunal. Thus he had to file the appeal in this Tribunal within a period of 120 days as the departmental appeal was required to be filed within one month of the termination of service and then 90 days were allowed to expire for the department to decide the appeal and if within those 90 days the appeal was not decided the appellant bad to approach this Tribunal. To be more explicit the original period of appeal of one month ‑remained in fact and in computing the period of limitation, 90 days had to be excluded in case if departmental appeal was required to be filed. This view has been taken by us in a number of cases and has also been confirmed by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in appeal No. C. P. S. L. A. No. K‑31 of 1978 R. E. Abdul Bari v. Inspector‑General of Registration and another, decided on 20th March, 1978.
Since the appeal is time barred and there is no application for condona tion of delay it is not necessary to deal with the merits of the case.
In result the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer