1. MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN). This is an application under section 25 of the Standing Orders Act by the petitioner for his, re-instatement in service alleging that he has been illegally discharged without proper enquiry on the allegation levelled against him. 2nd party on the other hand, maintains that there was a proper enquiry on the charges against him and the petitioner having been found guilty of misconduct has been dis--charged.
2. Before entering into merit, I like to see if the application is in time. It appears that the petitioner submitted grievance petition by- his letter, dated 9-12-1969. A reply to that was received by the petitioner on 22-12-1969. That is the date given by the petitioner under his signature on the Acknowledg--ment Receipt. There seems td be postal seal, dated 23-12-1969. Even then the petitioner is not coming before Court within 30 days from the data of decision on his grievance petition, the present Application having been filed on 23-1-1970 the application being barred by limitation we are not in a position to look into the merit of the cast. It appears that there was a sort of enquiry and the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct. Mr. Meerza has opined that the case is barred by limitation. Mr. Sabur advises for re-instatement. . Any way I find the case tarred by limitation. Hence, ORDERED That the application be rejected as time-barred