Sayed Mehar Hussain Shah, Member--The appellant is aggrieved with the appellate rejection order dated 22.04.2006. whereby his appeal dated 17.03.2006 has been considered by the appellate authority and rejected being hopelessly time barred. The appeal, being time barred, is supported by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case, as stated in the memo of appeal are that while the appellant had been serving the respondents as Skilled Refrigerator Mechanic in Air Condition Shop, he applied for 48 days LFP w.e.f. 15.08 2002 to 01.10.2002, which was sanctioned. The appellant again applied for extension of leave upto 30.11.2002, fate of which was not intimated to the appellant. That the Respondent No. 3. arbitrarily, without any notice or intimation to the appellant initiated and completed the disciplinary proceedings, showing that a show-cause notice dated 25.10.2002 was issued to the appellant which was not responded and accordingly order dated 24.12.2002 was issued regarding removal of the appellant from service. Even no copy of the aforesaid order was sent to the appellant. This fact came to the knowledge of the appellart through a well-wisher. The appellant came back to work after three years seven months and lodged an appeal with the appellate authority on 17.03.2006. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 22.04.2006. The appellant filed a review/ representation which was also dismissed. Then he approached the Tribunal by filing the instant appeal on 05.10.2007.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the absence of the appellant was not intentional. It was due to family dispute that in order to save his life the appellant moved to interior Sindh. He further stated that the appellant has been discriminated against. There are number of instances in Pakistan Railway Department whereby absence of employees for several years was excused.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents relying on the comments filed earlier contended that the departmental appeal was filed after three years delay, hence it is prayed to be dismissed on that ground alone. He further contended that the show-cause notice was posted at the appellant's available home address. The rejection for extension of leave was sent to the appellant which was received back undelivered. Admittedly the appellant moved from his home address available with the department without intimation to the department. He further submitted that all the statutory legal requirements were fulfilled before taking impugned action and prayed that instant appeal be dismissed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, appellant was granted 48 days LFP w.e.f. 15.08.2002 to 01.10.2002. He then moved application for extension of leave through post upto 30.11.2002. It was obligatory upon the appellant to find out whether his request for extension of leave has been granted or not. No address was mentioned in the application filed for extension, through telegram. The appellant was required to furnish the address of service. The respondents in their comments have stated that the appellant was informed through telegram dated 19.10.2002 through the address available to them which was received back undelivered. We find that the appellate rejection order dated 22.04.2006 has been issued with specific mention that the appeal of the appellant dated'17.03.2006 has been rejected being time barred. The appellant was required to approach the Tribunal within statutory period, but he failed to do so, as per his own admission, due to family dispute, he had to move from his place of residence and he was not in a position to immediately return back to pursue the matter. The appellant was removed from service vide letter dated 24.12.2002, no departmental appeal having been filed before the departmental appellate authority at the relevant time, instead he filed departmental appeal on 17.3.2006 after more than three years. It is a settled law that when the departmental appeal is not filed within time, appeal before the Tribunal is not competent Reliance is placed on 2006 SCM R 535. Law favours diligent and no-indolent.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, the appeal is dismissed having been hopelessly time barred. No order as to costs.
8. Parties be informed accordingly.