' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 14-1- 2005 whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and order, dated 7- 11-2002 passed by Medical Superintendent, Services Hospital, Lahore imposing the penalty of removal from service has been kept intact.
2. Pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner on account of willful absence from duty, penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner by Medical Superintendent, Services Hospital, Lahore vide order, dated 7-11-2002 which was challenged by way of departmental appeal but of no avail as it was dismissed being barred by time which was also not condoned by the learned Service Tribunal and dismissed the appeal of petitioner vide judgment impugned, hence, this petition.
3. Chaudhry Muhammad Amin Javed, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of petitioner and contended emphatically that the petitioner has been condemned unheard and major penalty of removal from service has been imposed without affording him proper opportunity of hearing. It is also argued that delay should have been condoned by the learned Service Tribunal and the discretion as conferred upon it has not been exercised judiciously.
4. We have examined the above mentioned contentions, perused the record and gone through the judgment impugned carefully. We are not persuaded to agree with the prime contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner has been condemned unheard because it does not find support from the record which is demonstrative of the fact that the charge-sheet was sent on the home address of the petitioner which followed by two reminders. As a last resort substituted service was also made on 23-9-2002 but there was no response from the petitioner. The learned Advocate Supreme Court was asked pointedly that what else could have been done to get the petitioner associated with the proceedings but no reply could be given. The careless and callous approach of the petitioner cannot be appreciated to whom initially three months leave was granted to perform "Umra" which was further got extended for three months. The petitioner admittedly had not joined his duties after availing six months leave but sought two years more extension in his leave which was never sanctioned and the absence of petitioner has rightly been treated as wilful absence. How such a deliberate absence from duty could have been ignored. Every possible effort was made by the department to procure his attendance but in vain.
The petitioner was not condemned unheard but a fair opportunity of hearing was afforded but not availed by the petitioner for the reasons best known to him.
5. The penalty of removal from service was imposed by the Medical Superintendent, Services Hospital, Lahore vide order, dated 7-11-2002 against which appeal was filed by the petitioner on 19- 8-2004 with an inordinate delay of one year and ten months and thus, the appeal before the learned Service Tribunal was not maintainable being barred by time which has rightly be dismissed on this score vide judgment impugned which is strictly in accordance with law. It is well- settled by now that sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay being question of fact squarely falls within the jurisdictional domain of Tribunal and once a discretion condoning the delay was exercised it cannot be reversed without any lawful justification which is lacking in this case. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in the following authorities:-- ' Ali Hassan Rizvi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1986 SCM R 1086; Muhammad Azhar Khan v. Service Tribunal Islamabad 1976 SCM R 262; Yousaf Hussain Siddiqi v. Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner 1976 SCM R 268; Zahida v. Deputy Director 1990 SCM R 1504; WAPDA v.
Abdul Rashid Dar 1990 SCM R 1513; Sher Bahadur v. Government of N.-W.F.P. 1990 SCM R 1519.
' The petition being barred by time and meritless is dismissed and .