Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi was an Assistant Superintendent in the Postal Department, he was issued a show-cause notice on 26.04.2010 by the Authorized Officer. It was alleged that he had allegedly benefited by self-hiring of House No. 366. Street No. 4, Mehboob Lane, Fazalabad, Peshawar Road, Rawalpindi. Self-hiring was allowed to him vide order dated 08.08.2006. The house was sold by him to one Ghulam Shabbir vide sale-deed dated 12.09.2007 registered on 18.69.2007. He did not inform the Department of the sale and continued receiving self-hiring allowance till 30.11.2008. In this manner he caused a loss of Rs.80,036/- to the Department. According to the respondents the appellant had fraudulently applied for self-hiring of the said house for the period from 01.01.2009 to 30.06.2009 whereas he had already sold the said house. On this charge the appellant was awarded the penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 14.05.2010 under the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. He filed departmental appeal against the said order on 24.05.2010 which was followed by a reminder dated 22.09.2010. It was rejected on 27.09.2010. Thereafter the appellant filed a review petition on 05.10.2010. He was heard in person on 13.01.2011 but his review petition was also rejected on 22.01.2011.
The present appeal was filed on 21.02.2011. It was supported by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay.
2. It is maintained by the appellant that Ghulam Shabbir had give an affidavit that the sale of the said house had actually taken place on 12.10.2009. According to him he had not committed any fraud since the sale had become effective on 12.10.2009.
3. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the sale of the house was complete when the sale-deed was registered. It is further submitted that the affidavit attributed to Ghulam Shabbir was fake.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. At the very outset the learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the appellant had used derogatory language against the Authorized Officer and the competent authority. We have seen the departmental appeal filed by the appellant and other record. The appellant had definitely used uncalled for language, criticizing the Competent Authority and the Authorized Officer. But on these remarks we shall not take any action since he has been dismissed from service on a totally different charge. But at the same time we are constrained to observe that passing derogatory remarks against seniors tantamounts to serious misconduct on the part of a civil servant and for that appropriate action can be taken against him.
6. A sale of immovable property is complete when the sale-deed is registered. Rights are created in favour of the vendee and the rights of the vendor are extinguished the moment the sale-deed is registered. An affidavit from the vendee that the sale had actually been completed on a subsequent date has no value. An affidavit cannot defeat or supersede a registered document.
Hence the affidavit, stated to be of vendee Ghulam Shabbir, relied upon by the appellant has no legal effect. The respondents have labelled this affidavit to be fake. We shall not enquire into the genuineness of the affidavit since we have held that it is of no legal effect even if it had been sworn in by vendee Ghulam Shabbir.
7. The appellant was under a legal obligation to inform the Department that he had sold the house.
After registration of the sale-deed he could not draw self-hiring allowance, he had ceased to be the owner of the house. Thus he was not entitled to self-hiring allowance. He had practised fraud upon the Department, therefore, he was dealt with strictly in accordance with law.
8. The appeal is time barred. The impugned order was passed 'on 14.05.2010 whereas the appeal was filed on 21.02.2011. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 1908 no valid ground has been mentioned. The reminder issued by the appellant and the review petition filed by him did not extend the period of limitation. The application is rejected being without any merit. As a consequence of that the appeal is held to be time barred.
9. For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed as time barred as well as on merits.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Parties shall be informed accordingly.