M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).--------Imam Bakhsh Sub-Inspector, Cooperative Societies, had filed this appeal under section 4 read with section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
The appellant is a permanent Sub-Inspector in the Cooperative Department and was an approved candidate for the post of Inspector. He was suspended by the Deputy Registrar, Multan on 23-4- 1971. The appellant was, at that time, posted at Gujrat, Tehsil Kot Adu, District Muzaffargarh. An enquiry against the appellant was entrusted to Jam Faqir Muhammad, Inspector Cooperative Societies. The Deputy Registrar dismissed the petitioner from service vide orders dated 17-4-1972.
The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Deputy Registrar but the same abated on 7-7-1975. An appeal against the orders of the Registrar was dismissed on 17-1-1973. An appeal was also preferred again to the Government on 4-4-1973 but the Government decided on 4-5-1978.
2. The position is that the appeal was filed in the Tribunal on 2-10-1975 while the abatement of the High Court is dated 7-7-1975. The appellant applied for a copy of the judgment on 15-9-1975 which was ready on 17-9-1975. An objection has been raised with regard to the appeal being time barred.
3. According to the proviso of section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, the appeal had to be filed within 90 days of the establishment of the Tribunal. In the context of the objection as to limitation the order of abatement passed by High Court on 7-7-1975 was of no material consequence, As laid down by Supreme Court of Pakistan in Sh. Masud Ahmad v. Pakistan (PLD 1976 SC 195) the abatement was automatic on the establishment of, the Tribunal on 22-7-1974.
Thus the limitation expires on 19-10-1974. Thereafter the appellant was duty bound to explain the delay for each and every day. Even after the formal order of abatement passed by Lahore High Court the appellant failed to act diligently. Firstly, the order of abatement was passed on 7-7-1975 in the presence of the Counsel of the appellant but the copy was applied on 15-9-1975 after the lapse of more than two months. He further delayed the collection of the certified copy of the abatement order by about eight days. The copy was ready on 17-9-1975 but was collected on 25- 9-1975. Similarly, after 25-9-1975 he took another seven days for filing the appeal. All this shows a clear case of indolence on the part of the appellant. The appellant, no doubt, made a belated attempt to explain the delay of two months by stating that he came to know of High Court Order in 3rd week of September 1975 and applied for copy immediately. He also relied upon his illness. But the explanation apart from being belated hardly inspired any confidence. We do not believe the same. The appeal is barred by time and is, therefore, dismissed.