' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---In instant cases leave to appeals was granted vide orders dated 19-4-2012 and 7-5-2012. Marshaling the facts of both the cases is not necessary except noting that Mir Ajab Khan (appellant in C.A. 152 of 2011) while in the employment of Federal Government was dismissed from service. Through this appeal he questions the period of limitation in filing appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act 1973, interpretation of which has been recorded in the case of Chief Engineer (North) and another v. Saifullah Khan Khalid (1995 SCM R 776). Asad Tora (appellant in C.A. No, 447 of 2012) was in the employment of the government of Punjab and has questioned the period of limitation in filing appeal under section 19 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 2006), interpretation of the same has also been recorded by this Court in the case of Taj Muhammad Afridi v. Principal Secretary to the President Secretariat and others (2011 SCM R 1111).
2. It is to be noted that in this case we have already interpreted the question relating to period of limitation in filing of appeal under section 10 of the Removal From Service Special Powers Ordinance, 2000. It would be appropriate to reproduce the same hereunder:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any person aggrieved by any final order under section 9 may, within thirty days of the order, prefer an appeal in the Federal Service Tribunal established under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973: Provided that if a decision on a representation, or review petition under section 9 is not received within a period of sixty days, the affected person may file an appeal under this section within a period of thirty days of the expiry of the aforementioned period".
3. At this juncture comparison of section 10 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, 2000), section 19 of the Act, 2006 is necessary because both these laws have substituted some of the provisions governing the period of limitation for filing appeals under these instruments. The object of both the instruments was good governance in the civil service. However, we have already compared section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and section 10 of the Ordinance, 2000, which is identical to section 19 of Act, 2006, in the judgment of Taj Muhammad Afridi (ibid), contents wherefrom are reproduced herein below:-- "(9) In terms of the second eventuality, after a lapse of 90 days of filling of the appeal of review or representation he can file the appeal. But there is no specific cut up period for filing the same.
However, the appellant was proceeded against under a special law i,e, the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance No,XVII of 2000, section 9 of which provides cutoff date/period of limitation for various remedies available to a civil servant. A person, on whom a penalty is imposed, may within 15 days from the date of communication of the order prefer a representation to the Prime Minister or such authority as the latter may designate in case the order has been passed by the Prime Minister, person concerned may within the afore-referred period submit representation to the President. Section 10 of the Ordinance stipulates that a person aggrieved of the order passed under section 9 referred to above, may prefer appeal to the Federal Service Tribunal within 30 days.
The proviso, however, spells out that if no decision has been received by or communicated to the person so aggrieved (who has filed representation in terms of section 9 of the Ordinance) he may within a period of 60 days of its submission (representation) to the prescribed authority prefer an appeal to the Service Tribunal within 30 days of the expiry of the aforesaid period. Unlike the proviso to section 4 under the Service Tribunals Act, this proviso lays down a cut up period within which he has to file appeal to the Tribunal i,e,, "within a period of sixty days' of its submission to the prescribed authority, he may prefer appeal to the Service Tribunal within thirty days of the expiry of the aforesaid period".
(10) The two provisions are distinct and have to be construed accordingly. The appellant had to file appeal within the period prescribed under the proviso to section 10 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, failing which the appeal was time-barred. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that a civil servant can file appeal within 30 days of the communication of the final order passed on appeal or representation is not tenable. The judgments to which reference has been made by the learned counsel were cases of appeals under the Service Tribunals Act and not the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance.
Under the latter law, a person has 90 days (60 + 30) from submission of representation to prefer an appeal before the Service Tribunal.
(11) We have gone through the judgments relied upon by the appellant's learned counsel and find that those are of no avail to him because in both these cases appeals were filed under the Service Tribunals Act and not under the Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance.
(12) In terms of the special law under which appellant was proceeded against and under which he availed the remedy of appeal, cannot be made open ended to mean that till the outcome of the representation is communicated to him, he may not file appeal before the Service Tribunal. This would defeat the very purpose of the law. In Tanveer Hussain v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways (supra) the Court was called upon to interfere the same issue that we are seized of i,e,, the question of limitation under section 10 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, the Court held as follow:--- "10. It was thus incumbent for the petitioner to have approached the