MALIK ABDUL AZIZ (MEMBER).--During 1980, when Abdul Sattar Chohan appellant was posted as Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, Lahore the Governor's Inspection Team Punjab, inspected the execution of Raiwind-Chhanga Manga Road, found the work under his charge at certain places to be substandard and defective; and made a report in that behalf. In pursuance of that report a regular departmental enquiry was held into the matter by the Director, Road Research and Material Testing Institute, Lahore, who carried out further tests, gave the following findings in respect of the execution of the works in question and confirmed the following substandard work:-- Low compaction of:
(1) Sub-grade (on the berm) in mile 11/1, 11/4 and 12/5.
(2) Sub-base in mile 12/2.
(3) Base course in mile 12/3.
(4) Sub-grade (under the pavement) 11/3, 11/4 and 12/5.
(5) Sub-grade (in the berm) in mile 11/1, 11/4 and 12/5.
(6) Sub-base in mile 12/2.
(7) Base course in mile 12/2.
2. Consequently, the appellant was served with a show-cause notice under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 by the Secretary, Communications and Works Department, Government of the Punjab which reads as under:-- "During your incumbancy as. Executive Engineer in Road Construction Division, Lahore, you were responsible for the execution of Raiwind-Chhanga Manga Road. The Governor Inspection Team have inspected this work and found the work at certain places to be below standard. The Director, Road Research carried out further tests and has confirmed the following substandard work: Low compaction of:
(1) Sub-grade (on the berm) in mile 11/1, 11/4 and 12/5.
(2) Sub-base in mile 12/2.
(3) Base course in mile 12/3.
(4) Sub-grade (under the pavement) 11/3, 11/4 and 12/5.
(5) Sub-grade (in the berm) in mile 11/1, 11/4 and 12/5.
(6) Sub-base in mile 12/2.
(7) Base course in mile 12/2.
By reason of the above, you appear to be guilty of inefficiency within the meaning of Rule 3(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 and as such liable to disciplinary action under Rule 4 of the said Rules which may include imposition of one or more of the penalties as prescribed by Rules 4 of the said rules.
You are hereby required to explain within 7 days of the receipt of this notice as to why disciplinary action as aforesaid should not be taken against you. You may consult relevant record of the Highway Department at Lahore/Kasur, if necessary.
(4) Your written defence should reach the undersigned within the aforesaid period, failing which it shall be presumed that either you have no defence or you have declined to offer the same.
Sd/- S. Sibtul Hasan Shah, Secretary to the Government of Punjab.
Communications and Works Department."
3. After due proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 the appellant was awarded a minor penalty of "Censure" by the competent authority i,e,, Secretary C & W Department vide his impugned order dated 8-1-1981, against which he filed a Review Petition dated 9-2-1981, but the same was rejected on 28-3-1981, an the decision of rejection was officially communicated to the appellant on 28-3-1981 through a registered letter of even date. As per record he presented the instant appeal, under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals' Act 1974, to the Registrar of this Tribunal, on 3-5-1988, challenging the impugned order dated 8-1-1981, praying that the said order dated 8-1-1981 and subsequent order dated 28-3-1981 whereby the appellant's review petition was rejected by the aforesaid authority may be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order dated 8-1-1981, mainly on the ground that after serving the appellant with a show-cause notice, no regular enquiry was held against the appellant, and as such the .minor penalty of "Censure" was awarded to him illegally. It was further contended that the rejection of the appellant's review petition dated 9-2-1981 was officially communicated to him by his parent Department as late as on 11-4-1988, and not on 28-3- 1981 as claimed by the Department.
5. Learned District Attorney has vehemently opposed the instant appeal mainly on the point of limitation as well as on merits and has contended that the proceedings undertaken by the competent authority (respondent) against the appellant under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 were perfectly legal and quite in order.
6. Having heard the parties and on scrutiny of the relevant record, it is fully established that the rejection of the review petition dated 9-2-1981 of the appellant was communicated to him by his parent department through a registered letter on 28-3-1981, against which the appellant did not file any appeal, under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, before this Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation. Being fully aware of the final outcome of his review petition, the appellant chose to address yet another representation dated 7-3-1988 in that very context to the Secretary, Communications and Works Department (knowing fully well that no such second representation was legally competent) obviously with the sole object of abridging the limitation which had already run out by more than seven years against the appellant. That scheme of things however, did not work since the appellant was again informed by his parent Department vide letter dated 11-4-1988 that his appeal had been considered and rejected much earlier. Thus it is abundantly clear from the record that against the impugned orders dated 8-1-1981 and 28-3-1981 the appellant presented his instant appeal to the Registrar of this Tribunal on 3-5-1988 after an inordinate delay of more than seven years. During his arguments learned counsel for the appellant has failed to justify the aforestated inordinate delay in filing the instant appeal. As such there being absolutely no ground to condone the aforesaid delay of more than seven years in filing the instant appeal, the appeal is liable to outright dismissal on the point of limitation alone.
7. During his arguments learned counsel for the appellant has failed to rebut the independent and expert findings of the Director, Road Research and Material Testing Institute, Lahore (as reproduced at para. 1 above) against the appellant in respect of the execution of the works in question, under his charge. Learned counsel for the appellant has also failed to point out and establish any factual or legal irregularity, either in the proceedings undertaken by the competent authority against the appellant under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, or in the impugned orders dated 8-1-1981 and 28-3-1981. Thus none of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant at para. 4 above, regarding merits of the appeal has been found to be tenable, On scrutiny of the relevant record we find that the proceedings undertaken by the competent authority against the appellant under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 being perfectly in order legally, the consequential impugned orders dated 8-1-1981 and 28-3-1981 are obviously not exceptionable either on facts or on law.
8. Resultantly, we find the instant appeal to be devoid of any substance and merit. As such the instant appeal is dismissed on the point of limitation as well as on merits and the impugned orders dated 8-1-1981 and 28-3-1981 are upheld with no order as to costs.