' IMTIAZ RASOOL (MEMBER).---Appellant Bilawal Hague, Ex-A.S.I. Has filed Appeal No, 69/89 against the order of his dismissal from service. The appellant while working as A.S.I. In District Tharparkar was dismissed from service by Superintendent of Police Tharparkar vide order dated 14-3-1988_ Aggrieved by this order, the appellant went in appeal to D.I.-G., Police, Hyderabad Region who rejected the same by his order dated 27-10-1988. Thereafter, the appellant instead of approaching this Tribunal went in revisions to 1.-G.P. Sindh. The service appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of I.-G.P., Sindh 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, AA.-G. Have been heard The relevant record/documents have also been perused.
2. The appeal has been made under section 4 of the Sindh 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 D.I.-G., Police rejectng the departmental appeal made by the appellant or that of I.-G.P. 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 Sindh 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, 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 Appeal.
(2) There shall he one appeal only from the original order, and the order of the appellant authority shall be final."
3. The appellant having exhausted his right of one appeal made by him before the D.I.-G., 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 I.-G.P. Sindh. As such, the period of limitation which was to be taken from the date of D.I.-G.P.'s order expired and the appeal made by the appellant to this Tribunal on 9-8-1989 became time-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 Muhammad Boota v. The State and others 1988 PLC (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 time 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 B several cases, we hold that this appeal is hopelessly time-barred. Accordingly, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.