Find a Lawyer

Case No. 300/417 of 1983, decided on 27th February, 1984.

‑-S. 4 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑Appeal before Tribunal‑ Limitation‑ Condonation of delay‑ Appeal against penalty of removal from service due to misconduct‑Appeal filed about 5 years after date of rejection of departmental appeal Explanation that order of rejection of departmental appeal did not reach appellant till same procured by him on his own and appeal filed only two days thereafter‑No convincing material produced to satisfy Tribunal in support of grounds of condonation‑Condonation application, in circumstances, not accepted and appeal dismissed as hopelessly time‑barred.

M, A. Riaz for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑Maqbool Ahmad, Ex‑Forest Guard has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. 1974, in which he has impleaded the Divisional Forest Officer, Muzaffargarh, Forest Division, Muzaffargarh, the Chief Conservator of Forests, Multan Region, Multan and the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department, Lahore as respon dents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 16th February, 1972, 14th September, 1972 and 23rd July, 1978/26th June, 1983 be set aside and the appellant re‑instated in service with full back benefits of pay and allowances.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Maqbool Ahmad, Ex‑Forest Guard was serving as incharge Kotla Sadat Beat to Muzaffargarh Range in the year 1970. He was charge‑sheeted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Muzaffargarh on 15th January, 1970 on account of heavy damage to trees in Kotla Sadat P. F. Mr. Sadiq Altaf, Range Forest Officer, Ghazighat was appointed as Enquiry Officer to probe into the matter. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and gave every oppor tunity to the appellant to defend the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report, dated 6th July, 1971 with full details and concluded that the appellant was actually responsible for the damage of trees in his beat and thus the charge of misconduct stood proved against the appellant. The appellant was served with show‑cause notice on 7th December, 1971 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Muzaffargarh proposing the punishment of removal from service in the show‑cause notice. The appellant was also supplied with a copy of the enquiry report. The appellant was given personal hearing on 22nd January, 1972 and 10th February, 1972 by Divisional Forest Officer. The appellant could not prove his innocence of the charges levelled against him. Hence he was removed from service vide Divisional Forest Officer, Muzaffargarh, Order No. 144/M Z G, dated 16th February, 1972. The appellant filed an appeal against this order to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Multan Region, Multan which was rejected vide his Order No. 35/CCFMR, dated 14th September, 1972. The appellant made an appeal to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department, Lahore which was rejected vide letter No. SOFT (E) 3 (24)/76, dated 5th May, 1977. The appellant, yet, made an application on 17th July, 1978 to the Secretary Government of the Punjab, Forestry. Wildlife and Fisheries Department which was rejected vide Order No. S. O. E‑II‑3 (24)/ 76, dated 23rd July, 1978, with the remarks that his appeal had been consi dered and filed. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. It has been pointed by the learned District Attorney that the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred. He has sub mitted to elaborate his view point that the appeal of the appellant was rejected by the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Forestry Wildlife and Fisheries Department, Lahore as conveyed to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Multan, vide order, dated 5th May, 1977 and subsequently conveyed to the appellant. Even, if reliance is made to Annexure 'G' attached with the appeal, yet, another appeal of the appellant was rejected by the Secretary. Government of the Punjab, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department vide order, dated 23rd July, 1977. Presuming that this is the last order of the Secretary to Government of the Punjab Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department, in rejecting the appeal of the appellant, even then the appel lant has filed this appeal to the Tribunal on 28th June, 1983, after a lapse of nearly 5 years. Concluding his arguments, it has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that as is clear from the above facts, the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred for nearly five years and be dismissed on this score alone.

5. Rebutting the above arguments of the learned District Attorney, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. He has submitted that the last impugned order was, dated 23rd July, 1978 which never reached the appellant and he collected the same of his own sources on 26th June, 1983. After that he immediately filed an appeal, within two days, before the Tribunal. Thus, there is sufficient ground for the condona tion of delay and has prayed that the delay be condoned.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case. It is clear from the record that the appeal of the appellant was considered and rejected by the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department at two occasions i.e. on 5th May, 1977 and 23rd July, 1978. We have considered carefully the justification given by the appellant in his application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay, but we are not satisfied with the ground taken by the appellant/ appellants' counsel that the impugned order, dated 25th July, 1978 (Annexure G') did not reach the appellant and he collected the same from his own sources, on 26th June, 1983, after a lapse of nearly 5 years. This explanation is not convincing and is a lame excuse. We do not find this as a sufficient ground for condonation of the delay. Thus, we are in agreement with the learned District Attorney that the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred.

7. The upshot of the above discussion of this case is that the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred and is dismissed on this score alone.

There will be no order as to costs.

A. E. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.