' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---The facts of this appeal are that the appellant was selected for appointment as Senior Auditor (B-11) in the Military Accounts Department by order dated 27-9-1990 and according to the appointment order, he was supposed to join by 31st October, 1990 in the office of Deputy CAAF, Lahore. It is argued that his place of posting was changed from Lahore to Field Pay Office, AC(R), Nowshera where he reported for duty on 30-10- 1990. In the meanwhile, he appeared in another departmental examination for the post of Probationer Accountant, which he could not qualify. He accordingly made a request for extension of joining time and to allow the appellant to continue as Senior Auditor but his request was not accepted. The appellant made an appeal dated 18-4-1991 but the same was rejected by the Military Accountant-General vide letter dated 22-5-1991. Instead of coming to the Service Tribunal, the appellant made a representation dated 11-8-1993 to the Wafaqi Mohtasib. The appellant also filed Writ Petition No, 955 of 1993 before the Peshawar High Court on 19-3-1994 but the same was withdrawn on 12-4-1994 and such statement was made by him that he wanted to move Service Tribunal. He then filed this appeal before this Tribunal on 18-5-1994. Aiongwith memo. Of appeal, he has also filed application for condonation of delay wherein it has been stated that the appellant had been pursuing his remedy with the department concerned and then he went to Wafaqi Mohtasib and also filed writ petition before the Peshawar High Court and finally came to the Tribunal and this exercise was bona fide intention and the delay in filing appeal was not intentional.
2. We have heard Mr. Atiqur Rehman Qazi, the learned counsel who was present alongwith the appellant. The contention of the learned counsel is that the appellant submitted joining report but he was not taken on strength and for that he has been prosecuting his remedy and in this appeal he has prayed as under: "... It is prayed that the respondents be directed to treat the appellant's appointment with effect from 31-10-1990, the date on which his medical tests etc., were completed and he had presented himself for the assumption of charge of' his duties at Nowshera."
3. Apparently, the appeal is time-barred and first of all, we will have to dispose of the application of the appellant for condonation of delay. The departmental appeal was filed before the Military Accountant-General on 18-4-1991 was itself time-barred and was, rejected by letter dated 22-5- 1991 with the observations that it cannot be acceded to at this belated stage. Under section 4(1) of the'Service Tribunals Act, 1973, he had to prefer appeal before this Tribunal within thirty days of that order, but he chose a wrong forum and made a representation to the Wafaqi Mohtasib on 11-8- 1993 after more than 2 years of final order. He also filed writ petition before the Peshawar High Court bearing No, 955 of 1993 but the same was withdrawn by the learned counsel Mr. Atiqur Rehman Qazi, in presence of the appellant, and the following order was passed on 12-4-1994: ' The learned counsel for the petitioner requests for permission to withdraw this writ petition and wants to file petition/appeal before Federal Service Tribunal. Allowed. This writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The original document filed by the petitioner be returned to him."
' The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that he had been prosecuting his remedy in legal forums bona fidely. We are sorry we cannot and should not subscribe to this view, as the appellant was represented by a senior counsel like Mr. Atiqur Rehman Qazi, and he was fully conscious about the jurisdiction in service matters and it was at his behest that he withdrew the Constitutional petition, without any condition, for filing appeal before this Tribunal. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant after rejection of his appeal dated 18-4-1991 by the Military Accountant-General by order dated 22-5-1991 ought to have preferred appeal within thirty days before this Tribunal, which he failed to do, and made his appeal time-barred. His prosecuting remedy with the Wafaqi Mohtasib or before the Peshawar High Court after about more than 3 years of final order was at his risk and cost and the time spent there cannot be treated as bona fide. The application for condonation of delay does not advance the appellant's case for condoning such a long delay of more than three years without cogent reasons as such application for condonation is rejected. Since the appeal is patently time-barred, it is not a fit case for admission and the appeal is consequently dismissed in limine.