' MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).- Appellant Sajid Saeed Chohan was an Area Manager in the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan. It appears from the record that he had submitted a tampered photostat certificate bearing No,6788 with Roll No,2211 to the respondents, showing that he had passed the Intermediate Examination held in spring 1984. A show-cause notice was issued to him on 5-9-2000. As a consequence of this notice he was dismissed from service vide letter dated 11- 10-2000. It is the legality and validity of this order which has been challenged by him in his present appeal.
2. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the appellant had committed a criminal offence by submitting a forged Intermediate certificate and it was for that reason that the impugned order was passed against him. During the course of arguments a legal objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appeal is time-barred.
3. The impugned order was passed on 11-10-2000. The departmental appeal was filed on 7-11-2000 but the present appeal was filed on 11-5-2001. It was thus, not filed within the statutory period of limitation. No application for condonation of delay has been filed. We accordingly sustain the legal objection raised by the respondents and hold that the appeal is time-barred.
4. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Intermediate certificate produced by the appellant was forged. The record shows that the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education had also reported that the certificate was forged. However, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the appellant had not taken any advantage on the basis of the forged certificate, therefore, he could not be dismissed from service: We do not find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant had committed a serious misconduct in submitting a forged certificate before his employer. It is immaterial as to whether or not any advantage had been taken by him on that certificate. The fact remains that the appellant had knowingly produced a false certificate before the respondents. His this act cannot be condoned. We agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant had committed a criminal act and his behavior was not that of a gentleman.
5. For the above reason we hold that the appeal is time-barred and is also without merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
6. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed.