JUSTICE ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).-The facts of this appeal are that the appellant was appointed Meteorological Assistant vide office order dated 28-12-1976 against a temporary post. He qualified the Federal Public Service Commission examination in the year 1981 and was appointed regularly as Assistant Meteorologist. In the year 1987, he was sent on deputation to Pakistan Air Force Base, Masroor, where his performance was found satisfactory. By order dated 20-3-1988 he was directed to submit his Domicile Certificate which he submitted. Thereafter, a show--cause notice dated 22-1-1989 was served on the appellant on the charge that the Domicile Certificate submitted by him was got verified from the District Magistrate, Dadu, who confirmed that the same was forged one. The appellant submitted his reply. Thereafter, another show-cause notice dated 22-1-1989 was issued under the E&D Rules to which he replied. He was served another charge-sheet dated 12-4-1990, alongwith the statement of allegations, and the earlier notice dated 22-1-1989 was withdrawn and an Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct inquiry. Thereafter, a final show-cause notice dated 16-7-1990, alongwith a copy of inquiry report was served on the appellant. He submitted his reply. Finally, the appellant was removed from service vide office order dated 19-12-1990. Instead of coming to the Tribunal the appellant filed a Civil Suit No. 29 of 1991 on 5-1-1991 in the Court of III Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East, which was dismissed by order dated 30- 11-1992. Prior to this, the appellant had made a departmental appeal dated 6-2-1991 to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, which remained unresponded. The appellant filed this appeal on 1- 4-1993, alongwith an application for condonation of delay.
2. Prima facie, the appeal is time-barred as according to the appellant the impugned order of removal from service was passed on 19-12-1990. Under the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977, the appellant had to prefer a departmental appeal within thirty days but he failed to do so and submitted a belated departmental appeal on 6-2-1991, which remained undecided and in view of the Supreme Court decision reported in PLD 1990 SC 951 there being no rejection order, the appeal filed before the Tribunal is also time-barred. However, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that since the appellant had been pursuing his remedy bona fidely in a Court of law, that period is to be excluded. Even if this plea is considered, then there is still delay in filing the appeal. The civil suit filed by the appellant was dismissed by order dated 30-11-1992 and he filed this appeal on 1-4-1993 after a period of four months. Patently on both the accounts, the appeal is barred by time and is accordingly dismissed as such in limine.