ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner was serving as a Constable when he was removed from service by Deputy Director, F.IA. His appeal to the departmental authority was rejected.
Thereafter, he preferred an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the question of limitation. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:-- "There is question of limitation which was taken notice of at the stage of admission. The delay was condoned only for the purpose of admission on the basis of an affidavit of Mr. Zaheer Ahmad Zulfiqar Advocate that he rendered advice to the appellant that the period of limitation for filing the appeal was 120 days. Intimation of the dismissal of the appellant's departmental appeal was communicated to the appellant under letter dated 25-11-1986. This appeal was filed on 8-1-1987.
Thus the appeal was filed after thirteen days of the period of limitation. The wrong advice rendered by an advocate did not save the period of limitation and the delay in preferring the appeal is not condonable."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the admission order wherein the Court condoned the delay only for the purpose of admission of the appeal without prejudice to the question of limitation if agitated by the respondent's side. The learned counsel submitted that the respondents had not filed the written statement. He also referred to para. 4 of the impugned judgment by which the side of the respondents was closed as the Inspector who had appeared on behalf of the respondents had no instructions. In this petition, the petitioner has admitted that he had filed a time-barred appeal barred by 19 days and this was done so because the petitioner had been advised by his counsel. The Service Tribunal has taken notice of this fact. A wrong advice of counsel does A not extend the period of limitation. The Tribunal had not condoned the delay.
Under section 3 of the Limitation Act, if a suit or an appeal filed beyond the, period of limitation, the suit or the appeal has to be dismissed.
3. No question of law is involved in this petition. The petition has no force and the same is dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.