' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Fayyaz Hussain Lakhwera has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and has also appended an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay as well. This appeal is against the order of termination from service of the appellant from the post of Sub-Inspector in the office of Excise and Taxation, Rahimyar Khan vide order No, 79397942/E, dated 31st August, 1977. The appellant has impleaded Secretary, Excise and Taxation, Punjab, Director-General, Excise and Taxation, Lahore and .Director, Excise and Taxation, Multan as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order be set aside and he be re- instated in service with all back benefits,
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Excise and Taxation Sub- Inspector in the office of Excise and Taxation Officer, Multan against an existing vacancy purely on temporary basis, terminable without any notice and assigning any reason and subject to production of usual certificates. The appellant accepted the said terms as mentioned above with regard to his appointment and produced the certificates so required by them. The appellant continued in service for a period of about 3 years when his services were terminated, vide order.
Dated 31st August, 1977 by Excise and Taxation Officer, Rahimyar Khan. He filed an appeal on 25th September, 1977 to the Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department, Lahore, as well as made a number of representations to the M.L.A. Zone 'A', when his earlier appeal stood rejected. With regard to the representation before the M. L. A. Zone 'A' he was informed that as his reinstatement in service, was service matter, he was advised to agitate the same before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which was the proper forum. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of termination from service of the appellant was unlawful and, therefore, liable to be set aside. It was further argued that no legal procedure was taken while passing the impugned order against the appellant which should have been so conducted in view of his three years unblemished record of service. Learned counsel has made grievance that other persons like appellant were still in service whereas the appellant had been kicked out for such termination. With regard to the delay in filing the appeal, learned counsel has submitted that due to the circumstances beyond the control of the appellant he could not come before this Tribunal and went on agitating his rights with all diligence before his superiors as well as before the Martial Law Authorities.
5. On the other hand learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department has submitted that the appeal is neither maintainable in view of article 15 of the P. C.
0., 1981 as well as hopelessly time-barred. With regard to the merits of the case he has submitted that the appointment order of the appellant has clearly spelt out to him that he could be asked to leave the said service without any notice or assigning any reason, as the post to which he was being appointed was absolutely temporary in nature. According to learned District Attorney, with this clear indication at the time of appointment of the appellant, he cannot be permitted to make any grievance about his termination from service.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the appellant was appointed on purely temporary basis on 29th January, 1975 and was fully informed that his services could be terminated without any notice and assigning any reason. In view of the above, the Departmental Selection/Promotion Committee took a decision on 26th June, 1978 keeping into consideration all the pros and cons of this case and came to the following decision :- "The official was appointed at Multan. At present he is working in District Rahimyar Khan, Bahawalpur Division. While at Multan the Excise and Taxation Sub-Inspector misbehaved with the Excise and Taxation Officer. His work and conduct was kept under observation for a period of six months vide Director Excise and Taxation Multan's order bearing endorsement No, 2175/Estt., dated 12th May, 1975. The Director Excise and Taxation Bahawalpur has reported that the official earned the following adverse remarks :-
(a) "recovery is below requisite standards can prove better with more interest. Needs keenness to pick up the work with keenness and labour."
' These remarks relate to period 1st July, 1975 to 30th June, 1976.
"(b) Not enjoying good reputation. He was detected by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), Rahimyar Khan and Police, wandering in intoxicated position and was accordingly challenged under Excise Act. The case is sub judice."
' These remarks pertain to the period 1st July, 1976 to 30th June, 1977.
' The official is highly in disciplined and undesirable one. The Committee found him unfit and decided to terminate his services.
' The abovementioned Committee was presided over by Malik Muhammad Munir, Director, Excise and Taxation, Multan, alongwith Ch. Naseeruddin, Excise and Taxation Officer (Hqr.) Punjab, Lahore, Maj. Abdul Qadeer, representative of the Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Multan and Raja Muhammad Aslam, Excise and Taxation Officer, Multan. In view of the above it cannot be said that the case of the appellant was a case of arbitrary exercise of executive powers, keeping into consideration the appointment letter of the appellant as well as proceedings of the Departmental Promotion/Selection Committee.
6. The record of this case further reveals that the appellant when he' applied for the post which was so occupied by him, clearly mentioned that he was a bona fide Member of P. P. P. And has served it well by exposing himself to many dangers and he should be accommodated on this account. In view of the above declaration of the appellant the proceedings so taken under M. L. I. 21, would also be justified. As this order was passed under M. L. I. 21 the same would be hit by the Article 15 of the P.
C.
0., 1981.
7. With regard to delay in filing appeal, we find that it has been filed after about 4 years since the services of the appellant were terminated. No sound reason has been advanced in his application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay. In this manner the appeal is also hopelessly time-barred.
8. The result is we proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merits as well as non- maintainable and hopelessly time-barred.
' However, there will be no order as to costs.