' MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN (MEMBER).-On the 30th June, 1974, the office of the appllant then Income-tax Officer in Circle-A, Rawalpindi, was raided and a case was registered by the police against a number of persons including the appellant. He was suspended with effect from 9th July, 1974 and later on charge-sheeted for corruption and misconduct vide charge-sheet, dated the 5th February, 1975, followed by a departmental enquiry, The Enquiry Officer submitted his detailed report running into 26 pages on 24th May, 1975, concluding that the charge of misconduct stood proved but the charge of corruption was not proved. Thereon the appellant was awarded the penalty of dismissal from service vide Notification dated the 18th July, 1975. According to the appellant he then filed an appeal to the President of Pakistan and a number of representations were made to the Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, and also to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, but it was with his great persuasion that his appeal was considered and was rejected vide order dated 15th February, 1981, hence, this appeal.
2. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent-department that the appeal is barred by limitation inasuch as it was communicated to the appellant vide Registered A.
D. Letter dated 18th December, 1975, that this appeal, submitted to the President of Pakistan, was rejected after due consideration. It is contended that the period of limitation for filing an appeal before this Tribunal started running from the date on which the appellant had received the said communication dated 18th. December, 1975, while, he filed the present appeal as late as 17th March, 1981. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, after filing the departmental appeal dated 9th August, 1975, the appellant has been pursuing the matter vigorously and it was only vide the CBR's letter dated 15th February, 1981 that he was informed of rejection of his appeal.
According to the learned counsel the time for filing the appeal before this Tribunal would start running from the date of receipt of the communication dated 15th February, 1981 by the appellant and, therefore, the present appeal is in time.
3. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Though the receipt of the letter dated 18th December, 1975, is denied by the appellant yet the office copy of the said letter, available on the record, clearly shows that the said letter was sent by Registered A. D. On the address given by him in his appeal. It is a well- established legal position that presumption of genuineness is attached to all official acts. We shall, therefore, be fully justified in presuming that the said letter dated 15th December, 1975, must have been delivered to the appellant and he had been negligently sleeping over his right of appeal before this Tribunal for more than a period of five years. The department's letter dated 15th February, 1981, relied upon by the appellant ex facie shows very clearly that it was a reply of application dated 6th March. 1980, submitted by him to the President of Pakistan and, by no stretch of imagination, it can be considered as a departmental appellate order. No cause of action, therefore, accrued to the appellant on the receipt of the said letter.
4. Be that as it may, however, it has been persistently held by us. That making of repeated representations/reminders to the departmental authorities does not at all enlarge the prescribed period of limitation. It is immaterial whether the decision on his original appeal was or was not received by the appellant, because in case of non-receipt of the order of the departmental appellate authority, a total period of only 120 days for filing appeal before this Tribunal was available to the appellant, which he exhausted about five years before filing the present appeal and, as said above, the letter dated 15th February, 1981, itself does not give any fresh cause of action to the appellant as it only intimates rejection of his application dated 6th March, 1980. In our considered view, therefore, the appeal is hopelessly time-barred.
5. The appellant has filed an application under section 5 read with section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay urging that since July, 1975, he was trying to seek the remedy from the executive by actively pursuing his case and there has been no negligence on his part because he had made many representations and filed many appeals but none was considered properly and lastly the intimation dated 15th February, 1981 of rejection of his appeal was received by him on 18th February, 1981. We are afraid the contention of the appellant is devoid of any substance and in view of what has been said above we do not find any justification whatsoever for condonation of such an inordinate delay of over 5 years. The request for condonation of delay is, therefore, rejected.
6. In view of the foregoing, the appeal, being hopelessly time-barred, is dismissed as incompetent with no order as to costs.