' Syed Arshad Ali, Member.--Appellant above-named through the instant appeal, has assailed the impugned order dated 05.11.2011 whereby he was dismissed from service of Pakistan Rangers w,e,f, 11.11.2011. He preferred a departmental representation on 17.11.2011 which was rejected. On 28.12.2011, allegedly received by the appellant on 17.01.2012; hence, he approached this Tribunal on 20.02.2012.
2.the appellant though had stated in his memo. Of appeal that the rejection order dated 28.12.2011 was received by him on 17.01.2012. Kit no proof has been filed that it was received on that date. Even in his departmental appeal, except in opening para, he did not state that he received the said rejection order on 17.01.2012. No application for condonation of appeal was filed at the time of filing the appeal, but it was filed at a later stage, stating that the appellant fell sick. No documentary evidence has been annexed regarding his illness along with such an application. '
3. Appeal apparently is time barred and in view of the Supreme Court's ruling reported in 2011 SCMR 676, we do not think it proper to deal with the merits of case. The prime questions which are to be taken into consideration are (i) jurisdiction and (ii) limitation and then comes the merits of the case. There is no doubt that the appeal is within jurisdiction, but it is apparently time barred and in this view of the matter, the Honorable Supreme Court has clearly held by relying on 1987 SCMR 92,, it was held by the Hong')le Supreme Court of Pakistan that, ".....Appeal, if required to be dismissed for being time barred, then its merits need not to be discussed
4. A civil servant had to cross the two barriers before proceeding with the merits of the case. In the instant, the appellant was dismissed from service vide order dated 05.11.2011 and he was required to file the departmental appeal within thirty days which was properly done and within next ninety days he had to approach the Tribunal if his representation/departmental appeal is not responded to by the respondents. The departmental appeal was duly responded to and the appellant was.Required to approach this Tribunal within next thirty days of the order. The appellant had filed departmental appeal, though within time but he did not come to this Tribunal within next thirty days after his representation was rejected. The rejection order was is dated 28.12.2011 and the instant appeal was filed on 20.02.2012, which is hopelessly time barred. No plausible explanation/ground has been given for con donation of such delay.
5. We may rely upon a judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2011 PLC (CS) 671 where it was held that, "...---Held, it was condition precedent that civil servant had to file departmental appeal/representation before the Departmental Authority; and thereafter availing 90 days, appeal was to be filed before the Service Tribunal within one month---...."
6. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in 2010 SCMR 1982 that, "....No plausible justification could be furnished by civil servant for the delay, except that question of limitation was nothing more but a technicality which was an incorrect approach-Question of limitation could not be taken lightly as in service matters such question should be considered seriously and applied strictly....
' In another case reported in 2007 SCMR 1560, it has been held that, "....Object of limitation was to help vigilant and not indolent"
7. We do not find any cogent/reasonable and plausible ground to condone the delay in filing the instant appeal; hence, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Parties be informed accordingly.