JUSTICE (R) SHOAIB SAEED, CHAIRMAN. --- Appellant, Constable was proceeded against under PEEDA Act, 2006 vide show-cause notice No, 1041/P A, dated 26.7.2010 on the following charges:-- "As per report of Mr. Muhammad Irshad, DSP/SDPO Taxila (Incharge measurement stand No., 1 to 5), Candidate Wajid Shah (his real brother) applied for recruitment as Constable with form No, 302. He wrote measurement as 33-34%2 at the chest of his brother and sent him at Stand No, 1 where he was detected and found deficient in chest. His such an act is quite reprehensible and comes in the ambit of severe misconduct".
Appellant submitted reply , denying the charges levelled herein.
Resultantly appellant was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 7.9.2010 passed by CPO, Rawalpindi.
Against the said order appellant filed departmental appeal before RPO, Rawa lpindi Region, Rawalpindi who rejected the same vide order dated 17.2.201 1.
Instead of filing service appeal before this Tribunal, appellant filed revision-cum-mercy petition before the Provincial Police Officer, Punjab, Lahore which was rejected vide order dated 10.2.2012. Hence this appeal which was filed on 6.3.2012.
2. Learned District Attorney raised a preliminary objection that service appeal filed by the appellant was hit by limitation, after decision of departmental appeal on 17.2.201 1, appeal should have been filed within 30 days thereto, whereas it was filed on 6.3.2012 which was not within the statutory period.
3. Perusal of the file reveals that the impugned order was passed on 7.9.2010, against the order , departmental appeal was filed which was rejected on 17.2.201 1.
Appellant instead of filing service appeal as envisaged under Section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, filed revision petition under Section 17 of Act ibid. Under the said Section it is the Chief Minister , Chief Secretary or the Administrative Secretary or any other appellate authority who may call for the record of any proceedings within one year of the order of exoneration or imposition of penalty , the language of the rule authorizes the authority in the circumstances to exercise such power as given in the rule itself but it does not vest any right to the appellant to file revision as a matter of right. Even otherwise the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore cannot exercise any such powers as are meant to be exercised by the authorities mentioned in the rule itself.
In the cloak and garb of order dated 10.2.2012, appellant invoked jurisdiction of this Tribunal on 6.3.2012 in order to bring his appeal within time. Time started running for filing of service appeal after rejection of departmental appeal on 17.2.201 1.
Availing remedy before the wrong forum can be of no avail, as it shall not help the appellant to bring his appeal within time. Reliance placed on 2012 SCMR 80 .
4. Resultantly , service appeal was barred by time. No application for condonation of delay is appended with the instant appeal.
5. For the reasons explained above, this appeal is hit by limitation, therefore it is not maintainable and dismissed.