Javed Iqbal, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order dated 2.11.2009 whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6.01.2009 whereby major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed on account of willful absence from duty under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 passed by Superintendent of Police (West), Islamabad. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred which was rejected on 20.4.2009 by the DIG (P), Islamabad. The review petition was also dismissed by means of order dated 25.5.2009 passed by the I.G.P., Islamabad.
3. The appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner before Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad was dismissed being barred by time i,e, 42 days. Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Tarar, learned ASC on behalf of petitioner could not furnish any plausible justification for condonation of delay by the learned Federal. Service Tribunal except that a review petition was preferred by the petitioner which resulted in some delay. The said justification has probably been made in oblivion of the fact that no provisions qua review is available and hence no review should have been filed. It transpired from scrutiny of record that departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was barred by time and accordingly the appeal preferred before Federal Service Tribunal cannot be held within time. In this regard, we are fortified by the dictum laid down in Muhammad Sami v. Additional District Judge (2007 SCMR 621), NED University of Engineering and Technology v. Ashfaq Hussain Shah (2006 SCMR 453), State Bank of Pakistan v. Khyber Zaman (2004 SCMR 1426). The question of limitation cannot be considered a "technicality" simpliciter as it has got its own significance and would have substantial bearing on merits of the case. The law of limitation must be followed strictly. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in Chairman, District Screening Committee, Lahore and another v. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi (PLD 1976 SC 258), S. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi v. Chairman, Screening Committee Lahore and another (1978 SCMR 367), Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia and 2 others) (PLD 1958 SC (Pak) 104), Punjab Province v. The Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1956 FC 72), Muhammad Swaleh and another v. Messrs United Grain and Fodder Agencies (PLD 1964 SC 97), Chief Kwame Asante v. Chief Kwame Tawia (PLD 1949 PC 45), Hussain Bakhsh and others v.
Settlement Commissioner and another (PLD 1969 Lah. 1039), Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali and others v.
Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 SC 236), Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others (PLD 1975 SC 331), WAPDA v. Abdul Rashid Bhatti, (1989 SCMR 467), Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Azim Khan (1949 SCMR 1271), Inspector- General of Police, Balochistan v. Jawad Haider and another (1987 SCMR 1606), WAPDA v. Aurangzeb (1988 SCMR 1354), Muhammad Naseem Sipra v. Secretary, Government of Punjab (1989 SCMR 1149), Muhammad Ismail Memon v. Government of Sindh and another (1981 SCMR 244), Qazi Sardar Bahadar v. Secretary, Ministry of Health, Islamabad and others (1984 SCMR 177), Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council and others (1956 AC 736), Province of East Pakistan and others v. Muhammad Abdu Miah (PLD 1959 SC (Pak), 276 and Mehr Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Government of the Punjab and others (1977 PLC (C.S.T.) 165). Fazal Elahi Siddiqi v. Pakistan (PLD 1990 SC 692).
4. The question of limitation has been examined by the learned Federal Service Tribunal in accordance with law and no illegality or irregularity could be pointed out warranting interference in the order impugned. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused.