MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-This1petition is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Service Tribunal Islamabad, Camp Lahore, dated 18-2-1980 passed in Appeal No. 255-L of 1975 whereby the respondent's appeal was allowed on technical ground that at the relevant time Petitions A No. 2 Postmaster (Delivery) G. P. O., Lahore was not competent to pass the Order dated 17-9-1974 removing the respondent from service as Clerk, Delivery Unit, G. P. O. Lahore, as, according to the decision, only the President of Pakistan was, at the relevant time, competent to pass such a order, for the reason that from 18-8-1973 to 24-7-1975 there was no delegate from the President to enforce the Efficiency & Discipline Rules. The learned Tribunal further held , that since the Order dated 17-9-1974 was void ab initio, question of limitation in preferring appeal before the Tribunal, does not arise.
2. Muhammad Rafiq Shah, respondent, Delivery Clerk in the Registra--petition Import Branch, G. P.
O. Lahore absented himself from duty without any prior permission during office hours on the afternoon on 4-6-1974. During his absence. Mr. Muhammad Anwar Bhatti who was attached to him as a Helper received the 'returns' from postman of the area. The concerned postman returned 15 Registered Letters undelivered out of 79 received by him, for delivery. The undelivered Registered Letters included Registered Letters Nos. 56, 73 and 99 which were shown in deposit by entry in the Registered abstract alongwith the articles in deposit. Mr. Muhammad Anwar Bhatti did not enter total number of letters and grand total in the 'abstract' and also did not put up the daily bundle and the 'abstract' befor6 the Assistant Postmaster for necessary check up on the afternoon of 4-6- 1974. When, on the next day respondent attended the office, he completed the abstract on the 2nd spell of 4-6-1974. He affixed his signatures as 4-6-1974 and got it signed by Mr. Nazir Hussain Shah, A. P. M.
3. The matter, however, came to the notice of higher authorities and a preliminary inquiry was conducted, and the respondent was 'charge-sheeted and was called upon to submit his written defence statement, but he did not. After a number of unsuccessful attempts to deliver a charge- sheet, at the residence in person, the same was sent to him by post under registered cover which was delivered to him. Even then he submitted no reply to the same. In these circumstances ex parte proceedings were started against him and, after going through the material evidence and taking' into consideration the statement of respondent dated 10-6-1974 in which he had made certain admissions, order of removal from service was passed on 17-9-1974.
4. Respondent filed a departmental appeal before the Postmaster --General who, after giving him opportunity of being heard, upheld the order of his removal from service. Thereafter, instead of filing an appeal under section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 within 30 days of the com-- munication of order dated 29-4-1975 of the P. M. G.; he filed a revision before the Director-General, Pakistan Post Office Department, Karachi on 2-6-1975. Since no representation was permissible under the rules, the same was withheld and he was informed vide letter dated '18-6-1975 that no representation lay against the order of appellate authority. In spite of this the respondent filed another application soliciting the interference of the P- M- G. In the matter and complained that no rule was cited for with--holding his representation. Consequently, he was informed that his represen--tation had been withheld in view of rule 114 of P & T Manual, Volume 11. Thereafter the respondent filed his appeal on 19-9-1975 before the learned Service Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel for the Department contended that the appeal of the respondent was barred by 112 days as the same was filed against the order dated 29-4-1975 and there was no application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay. He contended that in the `grounds of appeal' no objection regarding the competency of dismissing or removing Authority was raised; and that for filing appeals under Service Tribunals Act, 1973 equal time for each and any kind of order whether regular, irregular or void and the Act created no distinction between void and other orders, as such by no stretch of language or imagination, it can be said that void orders .Are not hit by limitation ; and lastly that under section 24 of the General 'Clauses Act and of the constitutional provisions in allowing existing laws to continue there was always power with the petitioner P. M. G., Lahore to act under the Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1973 and he acted rightly.
Moreover, the question of jurisdiction was not raised in the 'grounds of appeal' before the Service Tribunal and it was for the first time agitated verbally at the time of arguments.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the judgment of the learned Tribunal carefully and in our view it is a case where Notification No. S. R. ,O. 895/K 63 dated 25-5-1968 classifying the services and posts specified, the officers to exercise all the powers of Authority under the Efficiency & Discipline Rules for the purpose of imposing penalty under the said Rules, where at S. No. 15 "Time Scale Clerks/ Sorters Post Offices, Foreign Post, Postal & R. M. S. Division including Sub--Postmasters, Clerks in Bag Control Office etc.". The officer designated is shown to be Gazetted Officer Incharge of Division. Thus we find no inconsistency between the Act, 1973 and the rules which remain operative till the framing of new rules. The case is, therefore, remanded to the Service Tribunal for decision afresh on other points involved in the matter. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.