MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN (MEMBER).-The factual position of the case is that the appellant entered Government Service in 19,43 in the erst--while Government of India. After partition of the sub-continent, he 'opted to serve in the Government .Of Pakistan. On the introductions of the Section Officers' Scheme he was promoted and appointed to officiate as Section Officer in October, 1959. He served as Section Officer for about eight years and then posted in the Embassy of Pakistan, Dakar, as a Third Secretary. In early 1969 he was proceeded against under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules for the following charges :- "(i) Delay in the submission of monthly summaries.
(ii) Non-compliance of or refusal to comply with Ambassador's instructions.
(i.e) Unpunctuality in attending office.
(iv) Non-attendance of office without proper authority.
(v) Submission of notes not couched in proper secretariat language which was tantamount to defiance, insubordination and indiscip--line."
2. On the basis of the finding of the Enquiry Officer the appellant was found guilty of misconduct and a penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on him by the competent authority i.e. The President of Pakistan. Subsequently, however, on a representation filed by him the penalty of compulsory retirement was reduced to the penalty of reduction in rank. Accordingly he was reduced to the rank of Superintendent with effect from 5-8-1971 vide Establishment Division's Notification dated the 31st March, 1972.
3. Thereafter, on the 4th September, 197,3, he was again appointed as Section Officer on ad hoc basis. On 26th September, 1973, he submitted a representation for his re-instatement as Section Officer on regular basis send for giving him the benefit of his past 12 years' service as Section Officer. Thereon the matter was considered in the Establishment Division and it was decided that since the appellant was firstly demoted to the rank of Superintendent as a result of disciplinary proceedings taken against him under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules and subsequently he was appointed as Section Officer on ad hoc basis, the appointment did not confer any right on the appellant for absorption as Section Officer on regular basis nor entitled him to any claim for seniority, confirmation etc. His representation was accordingly rejected and he was informed on 29-5-1974. It appears that he was again reverted to the rank of Superintendent vide Notification dated the 13th November, 1977. On his representation, however, he was again appointed as Section Officer and later his services as Section Officer in Grade-17 were regularised with effect from 19-12-1973 and on completion of five years' service he was granted Grade-18 with effect from the 19th December, 1978.
4. By the present appeal filed in this Tribunal on 12-9-1979, the appel--lant has challenged the legality of the order of his reduction in rank dated 31-3-1972 and the order of his reversion dated 13- 11-1977 and has prayed this Tribunal to declare the same to be null and void and to grant him the consequential benefits.
5. Quite obviously, the appeal of the appellant is hopelessly time barred as the impugned orders were passed in 1972 and 1977 respectively. Neither the appellant has made any application for condonation of delay nor such an inordinate delay is condonable for want of any justification whatsoever. The appeal, therefore, is not maintainable as barred by limitation.
6. On merits also we do not find any case in favour of the appellant inasmuch as after the perusal of the record we are satisfied that the appellant was rightly proceeded against and justifiably punished in 1972. In 1977 also his reversion is unexceptionable because he was appointed as Section Officer on ad hoc basis and could be validly reverted to his substan--tive post, moreso because this grievance was redressed by the Government itself by treating subsequently his service as Section Officer on regular basis with effect from 19-12-1973.
7. In the result this appeal is dismissed as barred by time and also having no merits.
8 No order as to costs.