JUSTICE (RTD.) MUNAWARALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-The appellant Mr. Zulfiqar Haider was Senior Store Keeper/Assistant (BS-11) in the Poultry Vaccine Production Centre, Karachi (hereinafter referred as the said Centre), when his services were terminated by the order dated 27th Nov. 1991, of the Project Director of the said Centre. The said order has been called in question in this appeal.
2. To begin with the appellant was appointed on adhoc basis as Assistant on 4-8-1977 in the said Centre. His post was subsequently upgraded first as Store Keeper w.e.f. 1-7-1979 and then as Senior Store Keeper/Assistant (BS-11) w.e.f. 8-2-1988. The appellant developed some problem in his eyes in August 1989, and therefore he was granted medical leave which was ultimately extended upto 23- 09-1990. Due to his continuous absence on medical grounds, the appellant was referred to Medical Board for necessary examination. The Medical Board recommended for his invalidation on the ground of his defective vision. The Board's recommendations were placed before the Board of Management which runs the said Centre. In its meeting held on 28-09-1991 the Management Board decided for termination of the appellant's services, because the said Centre in which he was employed was a self-financing Scheme having no provision for invalidation of its employees.
Dissatisfied with the order of the termination of his services, the appellant challenged it in the departmental appeal dated 14-03-1992, which he filed after receipt of the communication dated 18th Feb. 1992 from the Project Director of the said Centre. The present appeal was filed by the appellant on 09-07-1992.
3. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance went through the record relevant for disposal of this appeal.
4. After due consideration of the learned counsel's arguments and the material placed before us, we are of the view that without going into merits of the case, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. It was admitted at the bar that the first-ever order which aggrieved the appellant was passed on 27th Nov. 1991. He was supposed to institute departmental appeal within 30 days thereof. However, a copy of the departmental appeal which the appellant produced, not at the time of presentation of his appeal but much afterwards on demand of the office of this Tribunal, was dated 14-03-1992. Prima-facie the departmental appeal was delayed for about 3 months. The appellant filed no application for condonation of the delay. Instead his only explanation was that the order of the termination of his services was communicated to him on 18th Feb. 1992. In support of his explanation reliance was placed on the Project Director's letter dated 18th Feb. 1992 which is reproduced as under:-.
"Reference your letter Inward No.131, date: 16th February, 1992. A copy of the Board's decision regarding your services in Poultry Vaccine Production Centre, is enclosed. The same had already been mailed through Registered A.D. Photo copy is enclosed."
5. It would be significant to note two things in the above letters first, the above letter was a reply to the appellant's communication dated 6th Feb. 1992, and second, the impugned order had already been mailed to the appellant through registered A.D. The appellant has not laid before us a copy of his communication dated 16th Feb. 1992, referred in above letter. As such it was not known what the said communication contained. However, the Project Director's letter reproduced above clearly shows as if the appellant by his communication dated 16th Feb. 1992 had requested for supply of the impugned order or copy thereof, whereupon, besides enclosing a photo copy of the said order the appellant was intimated that it had already been mailed to him through registered post. In this connection our reference was invited to postal receipt produced by the learned AAG. It accompanied a copy of the impugned order of termination of appellant's services. The said receipt carried a postal stamp dated 30th Nov. 1991 which indicated that the impugned order dated 27th Nov. 1991 was mailed to the appellant through registered post three days later on 30th Nov. 1991. We see no reason why the appellant should not have received the impugned order soon after its communication to him. There is a chain of authorities of the superior courts holding that communication sent by registered post was presumed to have reached the addressee. Of course such presumption is always rebuttable. But the appellant has produced no evidence whatsoever to rebut the said presumption. Accordingly we hold that the impugned order mailed to the appellant by registered was received by him soon after its despatch.
In the above circumstances the departmental appeal could have been filed much earlier, latest in the first week of Jan.1992. But it was actually filed on 14th March, 1992. The delay so made in filing departmental appeal could be condoned by the departmental appellate authority. Instead of making such prayer to that authority and waiting for its decision on the question of the delay, he rushed in the present appeal. Thus the present appeal came to be based on the departmental appeal which was not filed within time. In other words it means to say that it was not filed in accordance with law (of limitation). Such departmental appeal could not be construed to have satisfied the mandatory requirement of exhausting departmental remedy before approaching the Service Tribunal for the desired relief. Thus the present appeal, apart from being time-barred, is also premature.
6. Even on merits the appellant does not appear to have a good case. Had we overlooked the above two legal flaws, the most that we could have done was to remand the case for fresh hearing. Since the Medical Board had recommended invalidation for the appellant due to his defective eye sight, there was no chance of his being retained in service. Moreover his service, as it appeared from the record, was not even pensionable. Therefore the appellant would not have benefited from fresh proceedings taken by the departmental authorities. On the contrary his agony would have unnecessarily prolonged.
For above reasons the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Given under our hands and the Seal of this Tribunal on this 18th day of May, 1993 at Karachi.