' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an appeal from Syed Ajlal Haider, formerly a Sub- Engineer in the Buildings Department, against the dismissal from service vide order dated 23rd November, 1977 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Buildings, Bahawalpur Circle, the charge being absence from duty without proper leave and proceeding abroad without due permission. As the appellant was abroad when the impugned order was issued, his father filed an appeal on his behalf on 15th December, 1979 which was turned down on 19th August, 1979 by the Chief Engineer, Buildings, Punjab as not being an appeal from the appellant. The appellant then himself filed an appeal which was rejected as being barred by time. Hence this appeal before us which wants this Tribunal to state that the dismissal order of the appellant is against the letter issued by the Government of Punjab on 21st August, 1978 in which the policy regarding procedure of employment abroad has been elaborated, and also to hold that the rejection of his appeal on the point of limitation has no justification in the eyes of law.
2. The parties were heard. We feel that since the appeal made by the appellant to the Chief Engineer was specifically rejected as being time-barred it would be more useful to give our finding on that point first. The order of dismissal was issued on 18th March, 1979 after proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules had been taken, notices issued through the Press, copy of notice given to his father and a copy posted to the appellant in Dubai at his given address. As stated above the appellant's father submitted a representation on his son's behalf relying on the Government letter of 8th August, 1978 (not 21st August, 1978 as stated by the appellant). This representation was made on 15th May, 1979, and was replied by respondent No, 1 in the following words :- "Since your son has not preferred any appeal against his dismissal, your petition is not worth consideration."
Whether this was a proper representation or not is immaterial since it was itself barred by time because as a representation or appeal made to the next higher authority, i. e. The Chief Engineer, it should have been made within 30 days of the passing of the order of dismissal. However, we agree with the Chief Engineer and do not count this as a representation from the appellant himself, unless the appellant had executed a power of attorney in this respect in favour of his father authorising him to appeal on his behalf, which he apparently did not because no such assertion has been made by the appellant. After this the appellant submitted an appeal to the Chief Engineer over his own signature. The date of this appeal is not given by the appellant, but as stated by the appellant, it was after the rejection of the representation made by his father, i. e. 19th August, 1979. Coming from the appellant himself this was the first appeal and, according to the principle prescribed by the E & D Rules, it should have been filed within 30 days of the date of the impugned order of dismissal, i. e. 25th April, 1979. It was, therefore, time barred, being late by more than three months. We find, accordingly, that the order of the Chief Engineer dated 20th April, 1980 rejecting the appellant's appeal on ground of being time-barred was in order and was justified by law.
3. There is also the matter of delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The final order was issued on 20th April, 1980. Since the appellant does not state when this was received by him we can presume that at the latest it must have been with him by the middle of May in Dubai, to which destination it was posted. The appeal was filed in the Tribunal on 24th November, 1980, whereas it should have been filed by the middle of June. There is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, made as an obvious afterthought on 2nd February 1981, submitting that the delay occurred because initially the appeal was instituted by mistake with the Federal Service Tribunal and "is still pending there". When the mistake was realised and a fresh appeal was filed with the Punjab Service Tribunal why could not the application for condonation of delay also be filed alongwith '? We are afraid that the circumstances do not warrant condo nation and we hold the appeal was filed in this Tribunal also barred by time.
4. In view of the above findings the appeal is dismissed in limine.