' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---The facts of the appeal are that the appellant Mr. Anis Zafar was working as Superintendent in the Central Excise and Land Customs, Karachi. In the year 1981 while posted as Deputy Superintendent at M/s. Tobacco International Company Limited for assessm ent of excise duty an FIR was lodged on the basis of the complaint of the then Collector to D.M.LA., Karachi that there was evasion of Central Excise Duty. The matter was investigated by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). The appellant was involved and his case was sent up to the Summary Military Court, and he was convicted by judgment dated 27-9-1984 and was sentenced to suffer R.I. For six months with fine of Rs, one lac and in default to suffer R.I. For six months. His conviction was reviewed by DMLA and suspended the same under section 143 of the Army Act but it was not countersigned and the matter remained pending with them. The appellant being aggrieved moved various authorities and also filed Constitutional petition in the High Court of Sindh but did not get relief and fmally he withdrew his Constitutional Petition No, D-203/1991 and was disposed of on January, 1992 with the following observations:-- "In the circumstances, Mr. Muzaffarul Haq, learned counsel for the petitioner withdraws this petition.
The petitioner is, however, free to resort to such remedy/remedies that may be available to him under the law."
2. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Siddiqi, the learned counsel for the appellant at length. It is argued that the appellant is entitled to all back benefits and re-instatement in service because his conviction was suspended by DMLA. It is argued that the appellant has chosen proper forum, i.e, the Service Tribunal and the appeal is within time as the representation of the appellant has been rejected and he has been informed on 29-4-1993.
3. The appellant was dismissed from service on the basis of the conviction by the Summary Military Court by Notification dated 25th November, 1984. He did not challenge that order before this Tribunal at that time. The appellant filed departmental appeal. The same was dismissed by order dated 5th July, 1993. He has all along been agitating about his dismissal and finally he approached the C.B.R. To intimate final decision in pursuance of the comments filed in the High Court and he was informed that his appeal had already been rejected vide order dated 5th July, 1991. The fact is that the conviction of the appellant has not been set aside by the competent Authority, and it is still in his way though according to the appellant it was suspended. The suspension of the conviction cannot be termed as acquittal. We feel that there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order of his dismissal which was based on his conviction by the Summary Military Court. Moreover the appellant has not cared to challenge the order of dismissal or appellate order passed in 1991 before this Tribunal in time but he had been pursuing the remedy in wrong forums and the matter has become time-barred. Furthermore, the appellant who was present in person, has informed that he had already reached the age of superannuation on 16-7-1993, but he wants to claim back benefits which are not maintainable in view of his conviction which has not yet been finally quashed. As such, the appeal fails on merits as well as on the point of limitation and is accordingly dismissed in limine.