1. GHULAM RASOOL SHEIKH (CHAIRMAN).--This is an appeal against the retirement of the appellant from service.
2. The appellant was Tapedar at Tando Masti Khan, taluka Khairpur. He had committed misconduct while deciding a Land Reforms case of one Rais Mir Muhammad Hari by showing as "Banjar Jadid" with ulterior motive. He was, therefore, charge-sheeted. He submitted an explanation wherein he admitted That there had been mistake in the preparation of the record. His explanation was not found satisfactory. It was also said that lie had completed 25 years of services qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits so it was in the public interest to retire him. Consequently on both the Grounds he was retired by the Deputy Commissioner, Khairpur under rule 5(4)(b) of Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and. Discipline) Rules, 1973 read with section 13(1) of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973.
3. An appeal was filed, but the Commissioner rejected the appeal on the ground that since the appellant had completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension arid his retention in the service was not found satisfactory in the public interest and was retired on that account, no appeal car review lay against such an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under section 13(i) of the Act. On the basis of this view the appeal was dismissed.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present appeal was filed. A plea was taken in this appeal that the appellant had not completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension as he had been out of service for a period of 2 years 3 months and 14 days from 17-7-1973 to 31-12-1975 as he had remained under suspension during that period. On the basis of this ground it was pleaded that according to rules this period could not be counted and therefore, it fell short of 25 years and consequently the order of the Commissioner was manifestly illegal and was liable to be set aside.
5. It may be noted here that the Commissioner had not decided the case on the allegation of the misconduct he had disposed of the case under section 13(1) of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973 on the ground that the appel--lant had completed 25 years of service and his retention was not found satisfactory in the public interest.
6. We asked the learned counsel whether the appellant has raised the aforesaid plea in the appeal which was filed before the learned Commissioner and his reply was in the negative. Thus it is a question of fact arid since the plea was rot taken by the appellant before the Departmental Appellate Authority we are unable to entertain at this stage. The point not raised in the lower forum cannot be permitted to be raised in appeal before this Tribunal.
7. In result the appeal is dismissed.