Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Member--The appellant has preferred this Service Appeal against the order dated 30.08.2010 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Karachi East and the order dated 19.03.2011 passed on his departmental appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was dismissed from the service on account of unauthorized absence. The details of show cause notices and the period of unauthorized absence are already incorporated in the impugned order dated 30.08.2010 which was affirmed and maintained in the departmental appeal. Along with the memo. of appeal, the appellant has also filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act in which he sought the condonation of delay of at least 9 months. It is well settled principle of law that before going into the merits of the case, the appellant has to cross the barrier of limitation and this Tribunal has to see first the grounds advanced for the condonation of delay. It is also an elementary principle that for seeking condonation of delay, the delay of each and every day has to be explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
3. Though in the memo. of appeal it is stated that photocopy of the impugned order passed in the departmental appeal was handed over to the appellant on 07.01.2012 but on the other hand the appellant himself moved an application for condonation of delay admitting the delay of nine months. We have also noted that at the time of disposal of his departmental appeal on 19.03.2011, the appellant was present in person and an opportunity was also afforded to him to argue his case, therefore, there is no occasion to say that the appellant was not aware regarding fate of his appeal which was dismissed in his presence. In the supporting affidavit of application moved under Section 5 of Limitation Act, the appellant has taken the plea that he was suffering from Hepatitis "C" and was advised to take complete bed rest. He has attached two medical certificates with the memo. of appeal. One was issued by Bismillah Taqee Hospital on 16.04.2010 which shows that the appellant was under treatment of Hepatitis "C" since 7th Feb., to 15th April on OPD basis.
This certificate was issued in the year 2010 for a limited period but it is a matter of record that on 19.03.2011, the appellant appeared in the departmental appeal in person. Another certificate was issued by Rehman Memorial Hospital on 19.01.2012 which shows that the appellant was under treatment from 05.06.2011 and he was advised to take complete bed rest for 7 months. We do not want to comment on the authenticity of this medical certificate in which even name of doctor is not mentioned under whose treatment the appellant was? However, we would like to observe that even by this medical certificate, the appellant was said to be under treatment since 5th June, 2011 while his departmental appeal was dismissed on 19.03.2011 and present appeal was filed on 19.1.2012. If we assume the contention of appellant to be true and correct regarding his illness from 5th June 2011 onward, even then, the fact remains that the appellant has failed to explain the delay from 19.03.2011 to 04.06.2011 in which the substantial period of time was available to him for filing appeal which he had failed to do so. Under Section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1973, an aggrieved person may file appeal against final order whether original or appellate made by departmental authority within thirty days of communication of order. Though under Section 6-A, Section 5 of the limitation Act is made applicable but again for invoking the benefit of this section, the appellant is required to show the sufficient reasons or grounds. A party who seeks condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act is bound to offer plausible explanation constituting sufficient cause in approaching the Court. The Court is required to dilate upon essentials, which required condonation of delay and the same cannot be decided in a cursory manner. Delay in filing proceedings cannot be condoned lightly unless it is shown that there are sufficient reasons causing delay. Law of Limitation reduces an effect of extinguishment of a right of a party when significant lapses occurs and no sufficient cause for such lapses, delay or time barred action is shown by the defaulting party, the opposite party is entitled to a right accrued by such lapses.
Reference can be made to my own judgment reported in 2013 YLR (Sindh) 375 (Master Abdul Basit v. Dr. Saeeda Anwar).
4. In the wake of above discussion, the appellant has failed to make out any case for condonation of delay. The application moved under Section 5 of the limitation act along with main appeal was dismissed by our short order dated 24.8.2013. Above are the reasons thereof.