' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Ghulam Muhammad, Assistant Colony Branch, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Secretary (Establishment), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and the Registrar, Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that adverse remarks as recorded in the confidential report for the year ending 31st December, 1972 as per Annexure A/i be expunged.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was conveyed the adverse remarks for the year ending 31st December, 1972 vide order, dated 9th February, 1973 of Assistant Secretary (General), Board of Revenue. Punjab as follows :- {{TABLE TEXT}} "6, Integrity :-- Assessm ent.
I have an impression that he is not incorruptible.
8. General Remarks : Is an experienced official but lacks initiative and control."
' The appellant made an appeal to the Secretary (Establishment) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore dated 27th February, 1973 for expunction of adverse remarks which was considered and rejected vide order, dated 29th June, 1973 of Assistant Secretary (General), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore (Annexure A/3). The appellant made another appeal, dated 2nd November, 1982 that entry be expunged from his Character Roll for the year 1972 as the Hon'ble High Court, Punjab, Lahore has acquitted him. This application regarding expunction of adverse remarks for the year 1972 was considered and filed by the competent authority vide order, dated 14th December, 1982 of Assistant Secretary (General), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore (Annexure A/6). The appellant yet made another request dated 31st May, 1983 (Annexure `A/7') seeking clarification regarding rejection of his earlier request. It was informed by order, dated 3rd August, 1983 of Assistant Secretary (General), Board of Revenue, Punjab that there is only one right of making representation against adverse remarks. As he had already availed of one opportunity in this behalf, his second representation dated 2nd November, 1982 was, therefore, filed by the competent authority. The appellant made, yet, another application dated 15th November, 1983 which was filed by the competent authority vide order, dated 28th December, 1983 (Annexure A/9) In this very order the appellant was also informed that in view of his successive applications made earlier he is informed that in case he puts in another application on the same subject, disciplinary action would be initiated against him. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties i. e. Ch. Mushtaq Masud, counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. G.
Humayun, District Attorney on behalf of the respondents.
5. An objection has been raised by the learned District Attorney that the appeal is hopelessly time- barred. The appellant had made an appeal for expunction of the adverse remarks on 27th February, 1973 to the Secretary (Establishment), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore which was considered by the competent authority and rejected as informed by Assistant Secretary (General), ,Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore vide his order dated 29th June, 1973. According to the S&GAD's circular letter No, S.O.R.-III (S&GAD) 14-2/72, dated 9th June, 1973, there is only one right of making a representation against adverse remarks. Thus, the appellant had availed the right of his representation which was rejected vide the above mentioned order, dated 29th June, 1973. On this rejection the appellant should have come before the Tribunal if he desired so but the appellant unnecessarily kept on agitating this issue with the departmental authorities time and again till vide order, dated 28th December, 1983, issued by Section Officer (G), Government of the Punjab, Revenue Department (Annexure A/9), the appellant was told that in view of successive applications made earlier he is informed that in case he puts another application on the same subject, disciplinary action would be initiated against him. Even then the appellant kept quiet and has filed this appeal to the Tribunal on 30th April, 1984. Hence, this appeal is time-barred by about 11 years as the appellant was required to file an appeal before the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate)
Tribunal in the year 1973 on rejection of his appeal vide order, dated 29th June, 1973 (Annexure ; but he failed to do so and has filed this appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal on 30th April 1984.
Thus, it has been pointed out by the learned District Attorney that the appeal is hopelessly time- barred and the appeal be dismissed on this score alone:
6. The learned counsel for the appellant was asked to rebut the above objection of the learned District Attorney regarding limitation. The appellant's counsel has referred to the application filed alongwith the appeal under section 5 of Limitation Act and has submitted that grounds in this application fully justified for condonation of the delay. He has argued that the appellant has continuously been agitating his grievance before the departmental authorities for the redress of his grievance but no fruitful reply has been given. He has prayed that the delay be condoned in the interest of justice and fairplay.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record of this case. We are in agreement with the learned District Attorney that the appellant had a right of only one representation and when the representation of the appellant had been rejected by the competent authority vide his order, dated 29th June, 1973 (Annexure A/3), the appellant was bound to file an appeal to the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate) Tribunal after that if he wanted so ; but the appellant unnecessarily kept on agitating this issue with the departmental authorities though he was directed not to do so. Thus, there is no justification for other representations of the appellant after rejection of his representation in the year 1973 mentioned above. This is also not permissible under the instructions, as according to the S&GAD's circular letter No, S.O.R.-III (S&GAD) 14-2/72, dated 9th June, 1973, there is only one right of making a representation against adverse remarks.
The appellant has filed the appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal on 30th April, 1984. Thus, we agree that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred for almost 11 years. We have also considered the grounds given by the appellant/appellant's counsel in the application for condonation of delay filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act alongwith this appeal, but we find that the justification given is not sufficient to convince us to condon the delay.
8. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred and is dismissd on this score alone.
9. There is no order as to costs.