Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Arshad Mehmood was a skilled Compositor in the service of respondents. He was employed with effect from 29.11.1986. On the charge of absence from duty since 21.03.2005 a Court of Inquiry was convened against him. Consequently he was awarded the penalty of removal from service vide order dated 13.10.2005 under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. On 01.03.2011 he submitted a departmental appeal for rejoining.
It was mentioned by him in that appeal that since he had been acquitted in the criminal case, therefore, he was reporting for duty. His appeal was rejected on 18.03.2011 as time barred. The present appeal was filed on 11.06.2011. It was supported by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay. It is stated by the appellant that he was awarded the penalty in question without any regular inquiry and that the impugned order was void since it was oral.
2. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the departmental appeal of the appellant was hopelessly time barred and for that reason the present appeal was also time barred. As regards the application for condonation of delay, it has also been resisted.
3. On merits, the case of the respondents is that since the appellant had not been removed from service on the charge of involvement in the criminal case, therefore, he was not entitled to reinstatement on his acquittal by the Criminal Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. The appellant was removed from service on 13.10.2005. His departmental appeal dated 01.03.2011 was time barred by about five and a half years. It is held in 2007 SCM R 513 that where the departmental appeal is not in time, appeal in the Tribunal is not competent. We accordingly hold that the appeal is not competent as the departmental appellate authority had dismissed the departmental appeal as time barred. We see no illegality in the order of departmental appellate authority dated 18.03.2011.
6. The departmental appeal was rejected on 18.03.2011 whereas the present appeal was filed on 11.06.2011. Even if the period of filing the present appeal is reckoned from 18.03.2011, the appeal filed on 11.06.2011 in the Tribunal was still time barred. The grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay do not warrant condonation of delay. As regards the contention of the appellant that he was condemned without a regular inquiry, it is submitted that he had been awarded the penalty in question after a Court of inquiry had found him absent from duty without any reason. Thus an inquiry had been held by a Court of inquiry against him. He was therefore, removed from service vide order dated 13.10.2005. A notice of this order was sent to his residential address on 27.10.2005. Thus there is no force in the argument of the appellant that the impugned order was oral. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the application which is rejected and the appeal is held to be time barred.
7. The appellant was involved in case FIR No, 413 dated 01.08.2005 registered at PS New Town, Rawalpindi under Sections 489-F/109 PPC. He was definitely acquitted in the case but since he was not removed from service on the charge of involvement in the criminal case he could not be reinstated into service on account of his acquittal in that case.
8. The appellant had filed Writ Petition No, 1228/2011 for the same relief. His writ petition was dismissed on 20.05.2011 on merits. After the dismissal of the writ petition the appellant could not file the present appeal for the same relief. His this appeal is hit by the principle of res judicata.
9. In the above circumstances, the appeal is dismissed as incompetent, as time barred and being without any merit. It is also dismissed on the principle of res judicata since his prayer for the same relief had been disallowed by the High Court vide its judgment dated 20.02.2011.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Parties shall be informed accordingly.