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. 17 of 1979, decided on 11th April 1979.
‑‑ S. 4‑Second appeal‑Condonation of delay‑Contention that ‑ appellant having preferred second appeal in Board of Revenue, period so spent be excluded for filing appeal before Service Tribunal Held, no provision of second appeal exists under law, time spent in prosecuting second appeal being not bona fide, cannot be excluded for purpose of condonation of delay, in circumstances.
Appellant in person.
The appellant wa3 the Chowkidar in the Revenue Department. He tried to secure copy of the Khasra Girdawari Register through fraudulent means and this was detected by the Taluka Headmunshi. He was charge‑sheeted and thereafter his services were terminated by the Deputy Commissioner, Khairpur by order dated 16‑8‑1977.
The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner and it was rejected on 7‑1‑1978. He filed a second appeal before the Revenue Board and it was rejected by order dated 23‑1‑1978 on the ground that there was no provision for second appeal. Subsequently, the present appeal was received by post on 17‑2‑1979.
From the statement of facts it is clear that the appeal is time‑barred as the order was passed by the Commissioner on 7‑1‑1978 in presence of the appellant and he was 'required to file appeal to this Tribunal within one month of the order but he filed the appeal more than one year late. Indeed he had filed a second appeal but since there was no provision for second appeal, the time occupied in prosecuting the second appeal cannot be excluded as it was not bona fide. So even section 12 of Limitation Act is not attracted. Even no application has been made for excluding the period on the basis of that section.
In result the appeal is summarily 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