1. MUNAWAR -ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--In this appeal, appellant Rana Jawaid Iqbal, ex-Constable has called in question the correctness of his dismissal from service. The order of his dismissal was passed by Superintendent of Police, Sanghar on 5-10-1987. The appellant challenged this order in departmental appeal dated 26-10-1987 before D.I.-G.P. However, his appeal was dismissed by the D.I.-G.P. vide his order dated 17-12-1987. Having failed to obtain any relief at that forum the appellant approached the I.-G.P. by filing petition before him on 29-3-1988. By his order dated 1-10- 1988 the I.-G.P. too dismissed his petition. Thereafter the appellant filed present appeal before this Tribunal on 9-1-1989 accompanied by an application for condonation of the delay.
2. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Counsel at some length and with their assistance we also went through the documents relevant for disposal of this appeal.
3. After giving our best thought to the arguments made at the Bar we are of the view that this appeal must be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Accordingly we will confine ourselves only to that aspect of the appeal. As stated above the impugned order of the appellant's dismissal from service was passed by S.P. Sanghar on 5-10-1987. The said order reads as under:- ORDERS BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. SANGHAR.
4. No, SSC/23209-16 of 1987. Sanghar, dated 5-10-1987.
5. Constable No,683 Jawaid Iqbal s/o Mardan Ali (under suspension) of P.L. Sanghar was charge- sheeted vide No,SSC/5392 dated 19-3-1987 for misconduct/inefficiency on the following statement of allegations:-
(a) While posted in Police Lines, Sanghar he has remained absent without any leave, intimation/prior permission of the competent authority as under:-
(1) From 7-7-1986 AN to 14-7-1986 AN (7 days).
(2) From 24-7-1986 AN to 29-7-1986 AN (5 days).
(3) From 15-8-1986 AN to 20-8-1986 AN (5 days).
(4) From 14-9-1986 AN to 22-9-1986 AN (8 days).
(5) From 3-10-1986 AN to 10-10-1986 AN (7 days).
(6) From 10-11-1986 AN to 18-11-1986 AN (8 'days).
(7) From 19-2-1987 AN to 2-3-1987 AN (11 days).
(b) His date of appointment is 29-3-1976. During his short service of about 10-1/2 years he has remained absent on seven different occasions in the past by which it is evident, that he is habitual absentee and known for absence.
6. He submitted his reply to the above charge sheet which was considered and found unsatisfactory.
7. As such S.D.P.O. Sanghar was nominated as an Enquiry Officer to hold regular departmental proceedings against him 'and submit his findings, who conducted the same and submitted his findings, stating that the charges levelled against him have been proved and recommended for major punishment. Agreeing with the findings and recommendations of the Enquiry Officer he was issued final show cause notice vide Nos, SSC/11129 dated 5-7-1987 for award of major punishment.
8. He has submitted his reply to the final show-cause notice.
9. I have gone through the file and also heard him in person on 4-10-1987. His explanations written as well as verbal were considered and found unsatisfactory. The charge is fully established against him. He is under suspension from 12-7-1986 vide No,SSC/13866-70, dated 15-7-1986 due to his involvement in case FIR No,43/1988 u/ss. 466, 468, 471, 474, 225, 420/34 PPC dated 3-7-1986 of Sanghar PS which case is still pending investigation.
10. Being 'found guilty of the charge he is awarded major punishment of dismissal from service from 4-10-1987. His period of absence from 7-7- 1986 AN to 11-7-1986 AN is treated as leave without pay and remaining periods of absence as mentioned above are treated as without subsistence allowance due to his wilful absence.
11. He is allowed to go in appeal to the D.I.-G.P. Hyderabad within a period of one month if he desires to do so.
12. Sd/- Superintendent of Police, Sanghar."
13. The above order is self-explanatory inasmuch as that the charge against the appellant was that he remained absent from duty unauthorisedly, that detailed enquiry was held against him, that Enquiry Officer submitted his findings recommending major penalty to be awarded to the appellant, that on receipt of such findings final show-cause notice was issued to him, that the appellant was also heard personally and that after observing all such legal formalities the competent authority namely the S.P. finally passed the impugned order.
14. Obviously the appellant has come in appeal before this Tribunal under section 4 of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). As required by proviso (a) of the said Section, the appellant had to exhaust departmental remedy before coming to this Tribunal. In compliance with such requirement he filed departmental appeal to the DIGP on 26-10-.1987 which was decided vide DIGP's order dated 17-12-1987. After decision of his departmental appeal, the appellant had to file the present appeal within 30 days of DIGP's order, i,e, latest by 15-1-1988.
15. Instead of doing so, he approached the I.G.P, by filing petition before him. But IGP too, rejected his petition vide his order dated 1-10-1988. As is clear from the proviso (a) to Section 4 of the said Act, it gives, right of only one appeal etc. before departmental authority. It provides no scope for filing second departmental appeal or ventilating grievance further in any other shape or form. When the learned counsel for the appellant was confronted with above legal position, he Was unable to give any satisfactory reply. Consequently the time wasted by the appellant in pursuing his remedy before the IGP, was not legally condonable.
16. We are of the view that after the appellant's failure in his appeal before the D.I.-G.P., he had two options open to him. He could approach this Tribunal within 30 days of the decision of his departmental appeal which was the requirement of section 4 of the said Act, or in the alternative he could seek redress at the departmental level by approaching higher departmental authority namely I.G.P. When he chose the latter option, the prospects of his coming to this Tribunal for relief obviously became extinct. By the time the Appellant's petition was rejected by the IGP on 1-10-1988, his appeal to this Tribunal had become hopelessly time-barred. As mentioned above the appellant was required to file the present appeal latest by 15-1-1988 which he actually file on 9-1-1989, nearly one year late.
17. As pointed out above the appellant came to this Tribunal after passing of the I.-G.P.'s order dated 1- 10-1988 which reads as under:- "The case of the petitioner ex-Constable No, 683 Rana Jawaid Iqbal has been examined. There lies only one appeal against the original order and the order of the appellate authority is final. No further appeal is admissible.
2. In this case the petitioner has already availed his right of appeal which was rejected by the appellate authority i,e, DIGP/Hyderabad.
3. Hence the appeal filed to the IGP is dismissed."
18. It would appear from the IGP's order that he too stressed the right of filing only one appeal and according to him the order passed in such appeal was final. On this view, he dismissed the appellant's further appeal as inadmissible. In this connection reference may also be made to clause 2 of rule 16.22 of Police Rules. It is as under: "(2) There shall be one appeal only from the original order and the order of the appellate authority shall be final."
19. The above rule lends unqualified support to the IGP's views expressed by him in his order, rejecting the appellant's petition dated 29-3-1988. Moreover, the appellant himself has designated his petition to the IGP as appeal. Even if it be treated as revision application under rule 16.24 of Police Rules, it will not help the appellant. Having exhausted his legal right of filing one appeal before the I.-G.P., the appellant could not postpone the filing of the present appeal before this Tribunal until after decision of the revision application made to the I.G.P. As stated above the period elapsed in the meantime could not be legally condoned.
20. Despite the above discussion, if the IGP's order dated 1-10-1988 were treated as final order within the meaning of section 4 of the said Act, still the appellant would not be within time when he filed the present appeal. He was supposed to have filed the present appeal within 30 days of the IGP's order dated 1-10-1988. In other words he was to file the appeal latest by 31-10-1988 but he actually filed it after the delay of more than two months from passing of the IGP's order. Of course the appellant simultaneously filed condonation application praying for condoning the said delay. The only ground taken by him in the said application is that he was ill and as such could not file the appeal within time. In support of his application, he has relied upon some medical certificates issued by some Doctor of Sanghar. The perusal of the said certificates would show that the appellant was all along treated as outdoor patient. Even if we believed, that appellant was ill during the relevant period and was under the treatment of the said Doctor, yet as disclosed in the said medical certificates, his illness was not so serious that he was confined to bed in the hospital or at his residence. If he could go to the hospital for treatment as outdoor patient, he could equally take necessary steps for filing his appeal within time. Therefore, we are not satisfied that he had reasonable excuse for delaying the filing of the appeal even after passing of the IGP's order in his revision application. Thus viewing the appellant's case from any angle, it is barred by limitation.
21. For above reasons the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.