' MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant Gul Mast, Medical Technician, B.H.U. Kot Tarnab, Charsadda, has preferred the present appeal against the impugned orders dated 27-9- 1986, 4-11-1985 and 1712-1987 vide which he was proceeded against departmentally and awarded the penalty.
' According to him he was posted as Medical Technician in B.H.U. Cheena and was deputed to distribute the World Food Commodities. He was charge-sheeted on 24-3-1984 for misappropriation of the same and was awarded punishment by respondent No, 3 vide order dated 16-8-1984. An appeal was preferred by him to respondent No, 2 which was dismissed and so was his further appeal to respondent No, 1 dated 17-12-1987. He challenged the said order as wrong, illegal, ultra-vires of the rules, void, without jurisdiction and not binding upon him on the grounds that the enquiry was conducted in his absence, that he was not served with a final show-cause notice and that the evidence was not sufficient and proper.
' Respondents denied the allegations and submitted that appeal is neither within time nor competent. Appellant was proceeded against legally. He was guilty of the misappropriation of the World Food Commodities. He was given full opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses.
' Arguments heard and the record perused.
According to section 4 sub-clause (b) no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal against an order or decision of a departmental authority excepting the dismissal from service, removal from service or compulsory retirement. The punishment awarded to the appellant was imposition of fine for indulging in the misappropriation of the commodities entrusted to him by the respondents for distribution amongst the needy persons. This is one aspect of the case. If we go through the appeal, it was filed before the Tribunal on 17-1-1988 after the failure of appellant's second appeal before respondent No,
1. According to provisions of section 4 of the Tribunals Act, 1974 only one appeal, representation or review lies against an order of the authority while in the present case the appellant did file appeal before respondent No, 2 against the order of respondent No, 3 and finally second appeal before respondent No,
1. When law prescribes a particular procedure, it cannot be ignored in any case. The appeal filed by the appellant in the Tribunal was, therefore, barred by time and also not competent. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed on the grounds of limitation as well as being incompetent. Parties are left to bear their own costs and file be consigned to the record room.