' MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).---Appellant Munawar Khan was a Sub-Divisional Officer in Sher Garh Sub-Division. He was served with an explanation letter, dated 15/16-10-1999 under Rule 5 (iv) of Pakistan Wapda Employees (E&D) Rules, 1978. It was alleged that he was responsible for the theft of conductor from 11-KV Lond Khowar Feeder/Jalala Feeder, as he had failed to energize it from the nearest HT/LT Line or to put the load of Hattina area to avoid the possible theft of conductor. It was further alleged that he had failed to register F.I.R. For the theft of conductor and had failed to attend the inquiry proceedings when called upon by the Convenor of the high powered committee. As a consequence of the explanation letter he was awarded penalty of reduction in time scale by one step for one year vide order, dated 20-10-2001. Through present appeal filed under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 he has challenged the legality and validity of the said order.
2. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred.
On merits it is stated that the appellant had been awarded penalty after observance of all the legal formalities.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
4. The impugned order was passed on 20-10-2001 but the departmental appeal was filed after more than one year on 29-10-2002. It is stated by the appellant in his application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 that he had come to know about the impugned order through Fax No,545, dated 17-9-2002. We are not prepared to believe this statement of the appellant that order, dated 20-10-2001 by which penalty had been imposed upon him had come to his knowledge on 17-9-2002. The impugned order shows that a copy of the order had been dispatched to the appellant. Official acts are always deemed to have been properly performed. This presumption has to be rebutted by an aggrieved employee with strong evidence. We are of the view that the appellant has not been able to rebut the presumption that he had received the impugned order in time. We are not prepared to believe that he had not received the impugned order in time and had received it through Fax on 29-10-2002. A ground has been fabricated for getting the delay in filing the departmental appeal and the present appeal in time.
5. Whereas the delay in filing appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 can be condoned by the Tribunal, the delay in filing the departmental appeal cannot be condoned by it. A departmental appeal is filed before the departmental Appellate Authority and not in this Tribunal.
As such this Tribunal cannot extend time prescribed for filing departmental appeal.
6. It is clearly laid down in 1995 SCMR 1505 and 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1641 that where a departmental appeal is time-barred appeal in this Tribunal is not competent. Accordingly we hold that the appeal is not competent.
7. There is no good ground for condonation of delay. The result is that the appeal is dismissed as incompetent since the departmental appeal had not been filed within the stipulated period. The application for condonation of delay has been rejected and for this reason the appeal is also dismissed as time-barred.
8. No order as to costs. Parties be informed.