' QAZI HAMID-UD-DIN (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal has been filed by Mst. Zakia, Ex-Lady Constable No, 744, against the order dated 14-10-1992 of respondent No, 3 i.e, S.P., Charsadda whereby the appellant has been dismissed from service. Her prayer is that the impugned order may be set aside and she be reinstated in service with all back benefits.
2. The facts, averred in the memo. Of appeal are that the appellant, who is a Pardanasheen lady, was appointed as Lady Constable on 23-11-1988 in the Police Department as is evident from Annexure 'A' on the file. The appellant contends that she had performed her duty to the entire satisfaction of her superiors and has received a comthendation certificate Annexure 'B' from respondent No,3 in this respect. Subsequently vide order dated 14-10-1992 Annexure 'C' the appellant has been dismissed from service by respondent No,3 for no good ground, against which she preferred a departmental appeal on 11-11-1992 (Annexure 'D') to which she received no reply within the statutory period of 90 days, hence the present appeal on the grounds that the impugned order of dismissal dated 14-10-1992 of respondent No, 3 is against the law, facts, natural justice and material on record, hence not tenable, that Mst. Gulfam and Mst. Mukhtiara were also dismissed from service but they were reinstated in service by the respondent department on their departmental appeals, that the allegations levelled against the appellant have not been proved, that the enquiry conducted is based on mala fide intention, that no 2nd enquiry was conducted in the case and that the appellant is totally uneducated and she has been kept in darkness from the whole mala fide proceedings. According to the appellant, the respondent No,3 was trying to compel the appellant to do his domestic work which the appellant refused one day due to some unavoidable circumstances and from that very day the respondent No, 3 intended to dismiss her.
3. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed their reply in which they have refuted the averments made by the appellant in appeal, and it has been stated that the impugned order of dismissal dated 14-10-1992 was passed by respondent No, 3 after proper departmental enquiry through a Gazetted Police Officer and thus the same is according to law, natural justice and materials on record. Moreover, the cases of Mst. Gulfam and Mst. Mukhtiara Lady Constables were different from that of the appellant's case and therefore, they were reinstated, that a final show-cause notice was served upon the appellant but her reply was not found satisfactory and that she was given each and every opportunity to cross-examine the P.Ws. Besides there are two adverse entries in her service record, therefore, her appeal be dismissed with costs. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents has taken the plea of limitation at the stage of arguments. In the reply to the appeal the question of limitation was not raised but since it is a question of law and fact, therefore, it can be raised at any time. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order was passed on 14-10-1992 against which the departmental appeal was filed on 11-11-1992 and the appellant was supposed to file her appeal on or before 11-3-1992 but she fell ill. The appellant has annexed with her appeal the OPD slips dated 12-2-1993, 13-3-1993 and 14-4-1993 wherein it has been shown that she was suffering from sciatica and she was advised complete bed rest from 12-2-1993 to 13-3-1993, 13-3-1993 to 14-4-1993 and from 14-4-1993 to 15-5-1993. The appeal was filed on 20-5-1993 and the learned counsel for the appellant contends that 4 days were required to collect the record/documents. In the circumstances this evidence produced by the appellant annexed with the appeal amply justify condonation of the delay which has been sought in the application filed with the appeal for the condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, so the question of limitation at the stage of arguments by the learned counsel for the respondents is not accepted. The dismissal order has been passed on the ground of being a woman of immoral and questionable character but no statement of allegations, charge-sheet, enquiry, enquiry report/proceeding and final show-cause notice have been annexed by the respondents with their reply and no effort has been made by the respondents to file this record subsequent to the filing of the replication wherein this plea was agitated that this record was not made available to the Tribunal. In the circumstances the respondent department did not have any reason to pass the impugned order particularly in absence of the record mentioned above. Therefore, the Tribunal while accepting the appeal, directs the respondent-Department to reinstate the appellant in service from the date of her dismissal alongwith back benefits. Parties are left to bear their own costs and file be consigned to the record.