' JUSTICE (R.) GHULAM NABI SOOMRO (CHAIRMAN).---The appellant while serving as Assistant Secretary (Computer) in the office of the respondent-Board was dismissed from service on the charges of corruption and misconduct by order dated 24th January, 2008. Being aggrieved by the said order (Annexure "A"), she filed a departmental appeal, which remained pending till the filing of the present service appeal.
2. The case of the appellant briefly stated is that she fell sick and so was to undergo treatment of angiography/angioplasty etc. She therefore obtained advance of Rs,2,90,000 from the respondent.
The appellant could not be treated in National Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases (NICVD), Karachi, hence had her treatment from another hospital namely National Medical Centre, Karachi.
That the medical bills and receipts of the appellant were lost in her car which was burnt during protest rally on the 27th December, 2008, the day when Benazir Bhutto (Ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan was assassinated). That the appellant was deceived by Secretary of the Board who persuaded her to sign some blank papers. Ultimately however some amount advanced to her was deposited by her with the respondents. That she also obtained true documents but same were not accepted and a designated enquiry was conducted which concluded in her absentia and was followed by her dismissal from service order.
3. The respondent in his written statement has denied the case of the appellant. It is stated that the appellant forged the documents and upon verification of the record, NICVD informed the respondent that no patient by the name of appellant was medically treated or payments made to them. It is the case of the respondents that the appellant played fraud with its employer respondent-Board. It is added that enquiry committee was constituted, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant which was replied by her but thereafter she disassociated herself from enquiry. On coming to know of the NICVD report, when actual facts were revealed, the appellant deposited the afore said advance amount.
4. The respondent's preliminary objection inter alia being bar of time in filing the appeal, we called upon Mr. Nizam Ali Khan Bar-at-Law, to cross the preliminary hurdle first. During the hearing, Mr. Nizam Ali Khan submitted that against the impugned order, a departmental appeal was filed on 23-2-2008 which was within time. He agreed that appellant was entitled to file appeal before the Tribunal after expiry of 90 days and before expiry of 120 days, to be counted from 23-2-2008 in case no decision was made on the departmental appeal. He further very candidly conceded that the last day for filing this appeal was 21-5-2008. He also acknowledged that this was one option to the aggrieved civil servant. The learned counsel further admitted that the second option allowed by law to the appellant, was to file appeal before the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order passed on the appellant's departmental appeal. The learned counsel further accepted that present appeal was filed after more than 15 months on 28-8-2009. When questioned about the reasons for not filing this appeal within time, the learned counsel submitted that the reason of delay was the sickness of the appellant. On our further query, if there was any application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated there in, the counsel made a very frank answer by saying no such application is filed.
5. On the other hand Mr. Masroor Ahmed Alvi, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the appeal was hopelessly time-barred by more than 394 days, delay of each day was to be explained separately for which no condonation is sought. He argued that an application in this regard must have been filed without which oral assertions cannot be entertained. He argued that by taking a general ground of sickness without any proof on record, will not meet the requirements for condoning such long and unexplained delay. He placed reliance upon the cases of (1) Rehmat Din others v. Mirza Abbas and others 2007 SCM R 1560, (2) Chairman Railway Board v. Muhammad Arshad and others 2002 SCM R 181 (3) State Bank of Pakistan v. Khyber Zaman and others 2004 SCM R 1426.
6. The delay in filing the appeal is admitted. There is no application for condonation of it. There was not even an oral request for condonation. It was on our query that Mr. Nizam Ali Khan said that it was due to illness of the appellant. He could not deny that such reason was nowhere mentioned in the memo. Of appeal or elsewhere. In view of this situation, it would amount to transgression of jurisdiction to consider condonation of long delay of about 15 months in favour of the appellant.
Reference is made of the cases reported as (1) N.-W.F.P. Through Chief Secretary v. Mst. Hussain Pari and others PLD 1988 SC 144 (2) Government of the Punjab v. Muhammad Saleem PLD 1995 SC 396 (3) Sher Bahadur v. The Government of N.-W.F.P. 1990 SCM R 1519.
7. Accordingly, without touching the merits of the case of the appellant, we dismiss this appeal being hopelessly time barred. There is however no order as to costs.