' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 15-5- 2004 whereby the learned Service Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner and penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon him by means of order, dated 25- 10-2001 by the Competent Authority has been kept intact.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined Pakistan Air Force as L.D.C. And served about 13 years when a show-cause notice, dated 6-7-2001 was given to him on account of misconduct. The petitioner refuted the allegation, however, the said show-cause notice was cancelled by the respondents and in lieu thereof a charge-sheet, dated 11-8-2001 was served upon him. The petitioner denied the allegations being based on misstatement and mala fide. A Board of Inquiry was constituted and statements of 8 witnesses were got recorded. The Board after having gone through the entire record and inquiry proceedings, concluded as follows:--- "FINDINGS ' The Inquiry Officer finds that:
(a) Steno Muhammad Latif is habitual of absenting himself from duty, of misconduct and being ill- disciplined as per Exhibits 'A', 'C', 'F', 'H', 'L', 'M', 'N', 'P', 'Q', 'R' and 'T'.
(b) He used insubordinate/insulting language in respect of his seniors as per Exhibits 'B', 'D', 'G', '0' and 'S'.
(c) He is also habitual of writing letters directly to higher Command by putting false allegations, redress against senior Officers of Base authorities and violating the normal service channels/chain of command as per Exhibits 'D', 'E', 'K' and 'S'.
' (Sd.) Muhammad Iqbal Squadron Leader ' Dated 26 September, 2001 President Board of Inquiry".
3. Pursuant to findings of the Board of Inquiry another show-cause notice, dated 3-10-2001 was issued. The petitioner refuted all the allegations and levelled certain counter-allegations on the respondents. After conclusion of necessary formalities, major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner by means of order, dated 25-10-2001. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a departmental appeal which was rejected vide letter, dated 7-12-2001. The petitioner filed another appeal, dated 25-11-2001 which met the same fate and was rejected on 28- 10-2002. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the learned Federal Service Tribunal by means of appeal which has been dismissed vide judgment impugned, hence this petition.
4. Muhammad Latif (petitioner) appeared in person and urged strenuously that the major penalty of compulsory retirement has been imposed without adhering to the prescribed procedure in letter and spirit which aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Federal Service Tribunal, resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. It is contended that inquiry was not conducted in a fair and transparent manner and opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses was not afforded and thus the petitioner was condemned unheard. It is also argued that the learned Federal Service Tribunal has failed to dilate upon the question of limitation in accordance with law and chequered history of the case. The petitioner urged with vehemence that his appeal should have not been dismissed after one and a half year on technical ground of limitation and it should have been decided on merit. It is also contended that the law of limitation cannot override the principles of natural justice such as fairplay and equity which should be given preference to that of limitation which is nothing but a provision of law of administration. It is also contended that once the appeal was admitted for regular hearing it could not have been dismissed on the point of limitation which is not more than a hypertechnical objection and the period of limitation should have been condoned especially when an application for condonation of delay was moved.
5. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated by the petitioner in the light of relevant provision of laws and record of the case. We have minutely perused the judgment impugned.
There is no denial of the fact that the departmental appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner was rejected by means of order, dated 25-10-2001 which should have been assailed before the Federal Service Tribunal within prescribed limit of time. It could not be done for the reasons best known to the petitioner himself. The petitioner instead of following the prescribed procedure preferred another departmental appeal on 25-11-2001 which was rejected on 28-10-2002. It is, however, to be kept in view that there is no provision for filing second departmental appeal and thus the limitation would run from the date i,e, 7-12-2001 when the first departmental appeal of the petitioner was rejected. The filing of second appeal by the petitioner cannot extend the period prescribed for filing of appeals before the Service Tribunal. No second appeal having been provided in law. The time was to be counted from the date of communication of order of rejection of the first appeal. It is an admitted feature of the case that departmental appeal preferred on behalf of Petitioner was hopelessly barred by time. The application moved by the petitioner for condonation of delay has been dealt with by the Service Tribunal in the judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below for ready reference:--- "(6) The first basic issue raised by the respondent was the limitation. Record indicates that appellant was imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement vide respondents' order, dated 25- 10-2001 against which he filed departmental representation in November, 2001 without giving the date. This was, however, rejected by the respondents vide their letter, dated 7-12-2001. Appellant's second appeal has been dated by him as 25-11-2002, which indicates that he has used wrong dates because the respondents in their letter dated 28-10-2002 have stated that his second appeal was received on 10-7-2002. There is no rule for making a second appeal. Appellant should have straightaway come to the Tribunal after his first appeal was rejected by the respondents on 7-12-2001. Appellant filed this appeal before this Tribunal on 1-2-2003 which is also delayed.
Appellant has then filed an application for condonation of delay in which the only cause given is the mala fide of the concerned authorities. The application for the condonation of delay is reproduced as under:- "Before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad ' Muhammad Latif versus Assistant Chief etc. 'Application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for Condonation of delay.
'Respectfully sheweth:
(1) That the applicant has filed the above captioned appeal in this Honourable Court.
(2) That the applicant has filed two different departmental appeals before concerned authority, after the rejection of the first departmental appeal the PAF Authority promised the petitioner that if he again files an appeal before Chief of Air Staff, he will be reinstated into service. When the petitioner filed the second appeal to CAS that was again dismissed and served the answer of the appeal to the petitioner with a delay of approximately two months.
(3) That there is no wilful intentional delay in filing the appeals because the delay is due to the mala fide of the concerned authorities and non-service of answer of appeal properly to lose the case of the petitioner. A week ago they flatly refused to entertain my application and to consider the case of the appellant.
(4) That it is in the interest of justice that the delay, if any, in filing the appeal, may kindly be condoned.
(5) It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the delay in filing the appeal, may kindly be condoned in the greater interest of justice.
(6) The above facts clearly indicates that appellant's appeal is hit by limitation and the application for condonation of delay has not been properly justified and no plausible explanation has been given and in fact has attributed the delay to the mala fide of the respondents.
(7) In view of the above fact it is evident that the appeal is time-barred and, therefore, we will not go into the merits of the case. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs."
6. A bare perusal of the operative portion of the judgment impugned concerning the question of limitation would show that no illegality whatsoever has been committed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal by counting the time of limitation from the date of communication of order qua the rejection of the first appeal. It is well-settled by now that sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay being question of fact is within exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal and no interference can be made without any lawful justification which is lacking. In this case. Reference in this regard can be made to the following authorities:--- "Ali Hasan Rizvi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1986 SCM R 1086, Muhammad Ramzan Khan v. The Service Tribunal 1976 SCM R 262, Yousaf Hussain Siddiqui v. Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Peshawar 1976 SCM R 268, Zahida v. Deputy Director 1990 SCM R 1504, WAPDA v.
Abdul Rashid Dar 1990 SCM R 1513".
7. We are not persuaded to agree with the petitioner that the Service Tribunal should have not dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation without dilating upon merits of the case as the learned Service Tribunal is fully competent to dismiss the appeal on the sole ground of limitation. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in case titled Fazal Elahi Siddiqui v. Pakistan PLD 1990 SC 692.
8. In sequel to above mentioned discussion, we are of the view that the judgment impugned being well based does not warrant interference. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused.