IMTIAZ RASOOL, MEMBER.-Appellant Bilawal Haque, Ex-ASI has filed appeal No.69/89 against the order of his dismissal from sendee. The appellant while working as ASI in District Tharparker was dismissed from service by Superintendent of Police Tharparker vide order dated 14.3.1988.
Aggrieved by this order, the appellant went in appeal to DIG, Police Hyderabad Region who rejected the same by his order dated 27.10.1988. Thereafter, the appellant instead of approaching this Tribunal went in revision to IGP Sind. The service appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of IGP, Sind dated 11.7.1989 rejecting the aforesaid revision application.
Arguments of Ch. Rasheed Ahmad, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, AAG have been heard. The relevant record/documents have also been perused.
2. The appeal has been made u/s 4 of the Sind Service Tribunal Act, 1973 under which appeal is to be preferred against the final order; original or appellate made by a departmental authority. It is to be determined as to whether order of DIG, Police rejecting the departmental appeal made by the appellant or that of IGP whereby the appellant's revision application has been dismissed, was final appellate order within the meaning of section 4 of the Act. Section 23 of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973 provides right of only one appeal or review to any Civil servant aggrieved by any departmental order. Furthermore service of the appellant was governed by the Police Rules. Under clause 16.22, Right of Appeal of the Police Rules, 1934 the police personnel can also made one appeal only from the original order and order of the appellate authority shall be final. Clause 16.22 of the Police Rules is reproduced as under: 1)......................... 16.22 Right of App.
2) There shall be one appeal only from the original order, and the order of the appellate authority shall be final."
3. The appellant having exhausted his right of one appeal made by him before the DIG, Police was to approach this Tribunal in service appeal. He however chose to agitate the matter before the departmental authority by filing revision application before IGP, Sind. As such, the period of limitation which was to be taken from the date of DIGFs order expired and the appeal made by the appellant to this Tribunal on 9.8.1989 became the-barred by more than nine months. The appellant has not even moved application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. In similar cases the Tribunal has taken the view that right of only one departmental appeal is available in such cases. For example in the case reported as Mohammad Boota Vs. The State etc (1988 CLC (C.S)
165) this Tribunal was of the view that right of only one departmental appeal was available and as such after decision of any departmental appeal if the matter was taken before another departmental forum, the the spent thereon could not be condoned for calculation of the limitation period.
4. To be consistent with the view already expressed by this Tribunal in several cases, we hold that this appeal is hopelessly the-barred. Accordingly, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Given under our hand and the seal of this Tribunal this 9th day of August, 1990.