Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Mirza Muhammad Javed Iqbal was a constable in MT Section of Islamabad Police. He was on duty at R/15. He absented himself vide Daily Diary No, 17 dated 25.03.2008. On 03.04.2008 he was suspended from service and was closed to Police Lines Headquarters. Notices were sent at his residential address through registered post. During the period of his absence he was involved in case FIR No, 92 dated 08.03.2008 registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Islamabad under Section 506 PPC read with Section 25(d) of the Telegraph Act. The DSP Headquarters submitted his inquiry report on 03.02.2009. As a consequence of the proceedings he was awarded penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 12.02.2009. The intervening period was treated to be without pay.
2. The appellant was issued three notices under the Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000 on 03.04.2008, 31.12.2008 and 31.02.2009. The charges levelled against him were that on 07.02.2008 at 5.55 p.m he had made various calls to one Fiaz-ud-Din and his wife to pay him rupees one million and had issued them threats. It was on this charge that the above mentioned criminal case was registered against him. In the subsequent notices the charge of criminal case and absence from duty were repealed. It is maintained by the appellant that since he has been acquitted by the Criminal Court in the criminal case vide its judgment dated 22.02.2010, therefore he is entitled to reinstatement. On the charge of absence from duty it is stated by him that the absence was caused due to his illness and illness of his mother.
3. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is conceded that the appellant had been acquitted in the criminal case. It is, however, pleaded that on the charge of absence from duty the appellant has absolutely no defence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and departmental representative of respondents. The record has also been perused by us.
5. The impugned order of dismissal was passed on 12.02.2009 whereas the departmental appeal was filed on 09.05.2009. This appeal was, therefore, time barred. Under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 this appeal was to be filed within 15 days. It is held in 2007 SCM R 513 that where departmental appeal is not filed in time, appeal in the Tribunal is not competent. We accordingly hold that the appeal is not maintainable.
6. The departmental appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed on 18.07.2009 on merits as well as on the ground that it was time-barred. When departmental appellate authority dismisses a departmental anneal as time barred the Tribunal cannot extend the period of limitation for filing such appeal. It is reiterated that the present appeal is not maintainable.
7. The appellant filed a second departmental appeal on 29.07.2009 before the Inspector General of Police. It too was rejected on 12.02.2010. Under the Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000 and under the Service Tribunal& Act only one departmental appeal can be filed.
The period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of first departmental appeal. The second departmental appeal did not extend the period of limitation for filing the present appeal. We accordingly hold that the appeal is time barred.
8. The appellant was acquitted of the criminal charge by the Criminal Court vide its judgment dated 22.02.2010 as the complainant had turned hostile. Exoneration of a criminal charge in a criminal case does not affect the departmental proceedings. These proceedings are held under disciplinary laws. The appellant cannot be reinstated for this reason alone that he has been acquitted by the Criminal Court.
9. Be that as it may, the department should have held a proper inquiry against the appellant the charge of black mailing since it was very serious in nature. The inquiry conducted by the DSP was not regular. It was just and eye-wash. Normally we would have remanded the case to the respondents for de novo proceedings on this charge for want of inquiry but we are not doing so since the second charge of willful absence from the duty has been established on record. The appellant has tried to explain that his absence was due to his illness and illness of his mother. If he was ill and his mother was ill he should have sent application for grant of leave. He could not grant leave to himself by remaining absent from duty. The charge of absence from duty is established against the appellant.
10.We have held above that the appeal is not maintainable for want of departmental appeal. It is also time barred. The charge of absence from duty is also proved. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.
11.There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed.