1. ' MOBEEN AHMAD KHAN (MEMBER).--The appellant, Allah Bakhsh Kaka, joined service as Teacher in District Commercial High School, Hyderabad w,e,f, 16-8-1954. As a result of provincialization of all District Councils High Schools, the services of the appellant were also taken over by the Government of Sind w,e,f, 1-10-1972. While he was posted as Headmaster, Government High School, Perumol, District Sanghar, he received a memo. D.O. No, Admn-I (1)-57 66-671/1983 dated 3-7-1984 from the Deputy Director (Admn), Hyderabad Region whereby adverse remarks given to him by the Director Schools Education, Hyderabad for the period from 1st January, 1983 to 31st December, 1983 were communicated to him. The adverse evaluation as made by the reporting officer and agreed to by the countersigning officer are contained at Annexure 'A' of the case file.
2. ' The appellant after receipt of the aforementioned memo made a representation dated 22-8-1984, though the same as per rules was to be filed within a period of one month i,e, by 3-8-1984 the latest. It is asserted by the appellant that after having waited for a period of about four years when the appellant did not receive any response he made an application on 15-10-1988 to the Director Schools, Education, Hyderabad reminding that he had not received any decision of the competent authority on his representation for expunction of adverse remarks made by him on 22-8-1984. The Director Schools Education, Hyderabad vide his letter dated 24-10-1988 informed the appellant that the decision of the competent authority on his representation rejecting the request of expunction of adverse remarks for the calendar year 1983 has already been communicated to the appellant under Directorate's letter No, OSD/LSC(1)- 1985-86, dated 24-9-1985.
3. ' The appellant contended that the final rejection order dated 24-9-1985 was for the first time conveyed to him in response to his reminder on 27-10-1988 after three long years, and hence he filed this appeal on 14-11-1988.
4. ' We heard Mr. Ahsanul Haq Siddiqui for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Soomro, Government Counsel who argued the case on behalf of the official respondents. We have also gone through the personal and other relevant record with the assistance of Mr. Mohiuddin Kazi, O.S.D. Of the Education Department.
5. ' At the outset, the learned Government counsel raised the preliminary objection that the appeal was hit by limitation. In this connection, it has been noticed that the adverse evaluation report for the calendar year 1983 which the appellant has sought to be set aside was communicated to him by the Deputy Director of Schools, Hyderabad on 3-7-1984. As disclosed in the memo. Of appeal, the departmental appeal was made to the Director of Schools, Hyderabad on 22-8-1984 i,e, after 46 days as against 30 days envisaged under section 23 of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973, which is reproduced as under:-- "23.--(1) Where a right to prefer an appeal or apply for review in respect of any order relating to the terms and conditions of his service is provided to a civil servant under any rules applicable to him, such appeal or application shall, except as may be otherwise prescribed, be made within thirty days of the date of such order.
(2) Where no provision for appeal or review exists under the rules in respect of any order or class of orders, a civil servant aggrieved by any such order may, within thirty days of the communication to him of such order, make a representation against it to the authority next above the authority which made the order: ' Provided that no representation shall lie on matters relating to the determination of fitness of a person to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade."
6. ' The representation of the appellant was processed, considered and nally rejected by the competent authority in the Department by an order bearing o. S.O.(E-IV) A-83/85, dated 19th September, 1985. Accordingly the appellant contemplated under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 should ave preferred an appeal to this Tribunal within 30 days (on or about 18th ovember, 1985) of the communication of such an order to him. This mandatory rovision is reproduced for proper appreciation as under:-- "4. Any civil servant aggrieved by any final order, whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service may, within thirty days of the communication of such order to him (or within twelve months of the establishment of a Tribunal whichever is later), prefer an appeal to the Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter."
7. ' Apparently the appeal against this original and final order has been filed n 14-11-1988 and thus filing of appeal has been delayed for more than three ears. The Advocate of the appellant argued that the order dated 18-9-1985 effusing expunction of the adverse remarks for the first time was received by the appellant on 27-10-1988 when he reminded the Directorate for the decision on his presentation made some three/four years back. This assertion though made on solemn affirmation is not tenable for the obvious reason that nowhere it has been introverted that the impugned order was never issued by the office. The order is properly outdated and addressed correctly to the appellant. The letter issued by the Government of Sind, Education and Culture Department was addressed to e Director Schools Education and copies of the same were addressed to the strict Education Officer, Hyderabad and the appellant both. The inference is at the impugned letter which has been received by the other addressees, should have also been received by the appellant. The long silence of the appellant for about three years is also material and meaningful as well as substantiates the assertion of the Government counsel that the appellant who has managed communication of the order dated 18-9-1985 through a letter dated 24-10-1988 is futile effort to escape the operation of limitation.
8. ' The affidavit of the appellant is controverted by written statement of the respondent who has verified the contents therein on solemn affirmation.
9. In fact the appellant was never serious and it was a sheer indifference he did not pursue the matter for full three years. Delay defeats equity further equity oes not help those who are lethargic.
10. ' Again the appellant cannot found recourse under the plea of affidavit to cure the inordinate delay in filing the appeal as under the law he was not required to wait for an indefinite period for the disposal of his representation by the competent authority. The legal provision in such circumstances is very clear. The appellant should have invoked the provision of section 4(a) of the Sind Service Tribunal Act, 1973 which reads as under:-- "Section 4(a); where an appeal, review or representation to a departmental authority is provided under the Sind Civil Servants Ac 1973, or any rules, against any such order no appeal shall lie to Tribunal unless the aggrieved civil servant has preferred an appeal application for review or representation to such departmental authority and a period of ninety days has elapsed from the date on which such appeal, application or representation was so preferred."
11. ' We regret our inability to see the line of reasoning adopted by the appellant. From the above perusal of the facts, it is abundantly clear that the explanation furnished by the appellant is far from satisfactory. It is quite relevant to refer Supreme Court authority reported as Commissioner of Income-tax v. Pir Ahmad Khan 1981 SCMR 37 wherein it was observed: ' We may again clarify that according to the law each day of limitation must properly and satisfactorily be explained "
12. ' For the above reasons, we sustain the objection raised by the learned Government Counsel and hold the appeal as time-barred. The appeal is therefore, dismissed in limine as badly time-barred.