' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Abdul Waheed Qureshi, Sub-Divisional Officer has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab. Service Tribunal Act, 1974, against the order, dated 16th November, 1980 passed by the respondent and the order dated 30th December, 1981 by which his review petition was also rejected. He has also assailed the original order dated 30th June, 1980 by which it was ordered that the annual increment of the appellant be stopped for 2 years without cumulative effect and he would be debarred from promotion for 3 years.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside, as being unjustified and without lawful authority.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, Highway Sub-Division No, 2, Rawalpindi, carried out the work relating to restoration of flood damages to Kahuta-Panjar Azad Pattan Road, when the Governor's Inspection Team and Senior Officers of the Department inspected the said work which was found that it suffered from a number of irregularities which resulted in the damages to the said road. The appellant was considered guilty of inefficiency and misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(a) and (b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, and was issued a show-cause notice on 16th December, 1979 by S. Sibtal Hassan Shah, Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works Department, as to why one or more penalties, be not imposed upon the appellant as prescribed under rule 4 ibid. The appellant submitted his detailed explanation in which he denied the charges so levelled against him. His explanation was considered by the competent authority who found the explanation unsatisfactory and after giving the appellant, personal hearing imposed upon him, the penalty so given in the earlier part of our judgment. The appellant filed review petition before the same authority viz. Secretary, C & W Department but the same was considered and rejected vide order, dated 16th November, 1980. The appellant did not rest and thereafter filed another review petition before the same authority and the same was again rejected on the ground that it did not lie, as the earlier review petition stood rejected and appellant was informed of the same. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney appearing on behalf of the respondent and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, without going into the merits of the case, has assailed the order on the sole ground that the proceedings against the appellant were initiated by the incompetent authority viz Secretary, Communication and Works Department and the order passed against him was also not sustainable as the same was passed by the authority not competent to do so.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney contested this averment on the strength of the established facts from the record and impleaded that he would be in a position to show that both the orders were passed in a competent manner by the competent authority. Learned District Attorney further submitted that the appeal was liable to be dismissed as it was hopelessly time- barred. By the parties and have consulted the record of this case so as to assess the intrinsic strength of the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the proceedings as well as the orders were initiated and passed by the authority not competent to do so. It has been proved from the record that the proceedings were initiated by the orders of the Governor of the Punjab and the penalty imposed through the impugned orders was also approved by the Governor, who would be the ultimate authority for proceeding as well as punishing the appellant.
7. With regard to the plea of limitation, we have examined the record and find that the appellant was informed through a Registered A. D. The receipt of the same has been placed on the record, which shows that the appellant was intimated about the rejection of his review petition on 16th November, 1980. It is also a well-established principle of law that once an order has become final and a civil servant has exhausted his legal remedy he cannot be allowed to extend period of limitation in his favour by filing unnecessary review/representations at the authority which has already closed his case. In this case the appellant has file his appeal before us on 30th January, 1982 which would be barred by 1 year and 2 months. We also find no application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, to enable this Tribunal to assess whether this delay could be condoned or not.
8. With regard to the merits of the case, the appellant was charged for not looking after the work properly as it was found that the contractor had installed a stone crusher at site and was crushing the material locally available, and it was found that the crushing material was not of uniform strength, therefore, the appellant was guilty not to disallowing the Contractor to use the said material. It was also found by the Governor's Inspection Team that the material used at the spot was different than the material furnished as sample. Certain samples were obtained in the presence of the Advisor, Communication and Works Department and were put to test to the Road Research Material Testing Institute and the attached Los Angeles Test performed on them, showed poor results especially in the case of base course. It was also found by the Governor's Inspection Team as well as Senior Officers of the Department, that no filler material was used to fill the voids.
The filler material was neither arranged to the site nor it was seen having been dumped along the length of the work. We have carefully considered the explanation submitted by the appellant to find any reason to differ with the assumption arrived at by the competent authority as the same is based on facts which cannot be denied.
9. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed on this score as well as being time-barred. However, there will be no order as- to costs. Judgment is communicated to the parties.