' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant, Mr. Muhammad Boota Javaid was working as LDC in PAF Intermediate College, Samungli. He was charge-sheeted on 7th December, 1992 on the allegation that he tried to commit sodomy with a school child namely Ahmed Vaqas s/o Chief Tech. Abid Naeem in the College vicinity. He submitted his reply. A Board of enquiry was constituted and he was found guilty. Accordingly, the competent authority by order dated 3-2-1993 terminated the services of appellant. Being aggrieved, he filed Constitutional Petition No, 26/93 in High Court, Balochistan on 12-5-1993 but the same was dismissed with the direction that the appellant to file departmental appeal. Accordingly, the appellant filed departmental appeal to the Chief of Air Staff but the same was rejected as being time-barred under Rule 7(1)(c) of the Civil Servants (Appeal)
Rules, 1977 and he was informed vide letter dated 15th July, 1993. The appellant made a second appeal to the Ministry of Defence but that too was rejected vide letter dated 25th August, 1993.
Instead of coming to the Tribunal, the appellant filed a civil suit on 6-12-1993 which he withdrew on 13-4-1994. Finally, he submitted this appeal before the Tribunal by post and it was received in the office on 9-5-1994 and was returned to him with certain objections and on its resubmission it was received back on 31-5-1994. Alongwith the memo. Of appeal, the appellant has also submitted application for condonation of delay.
2. We have heard Mr. Zahid Malik, the learned counsel for the appellant. It is argued that inquiry proceedings were not conducted in accordance with law and the appellant was not liable for punishment.
3. The comments have been filed by respondents. Sq.-Ldr. Mukhtar Ahmed appeared for the respondents and argued that disciplinary proceedings were taken against the appellant in accordance with law. The appellant was served with a charge-sheet and inquiry was conducted by Board of Inquiry and the appellant admitted his guilt and the competent authority agreeing with the recommendations of the Board of Inquiry passed the order of termination as the appellant was not fit to be retained in service of a disciplined force. They have also taken legal objection that the appeal is time-barred.
4. Before we advert to the merits of the case, we propose to decide the legal objection. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been stated that the very order of removal being void, the limitation is not applicable. The appellant went to High Court of Balochistan and filed Constitution Petition which was dismissed with the observation that appellant should file departmental appeal, which he did file but same was dismissed as time-barred. He also filed civil suit and from these events it is clear that the appellant had been vigilant in pursuing his remedy and delay was not intentional and deserves to be condoned. We are not impressed with this argument. For the sake of arguments, even if we assume that approaching the High Court of Balochistan was a bona fide exercise and that period is condonable, even then the appellant did not come to the Tribunal and filed a civil suit which he withdrew and then he preferred this appeal, and this period is approaching a wrong forum is not condonable. We are of the view that there are no good grounds in the application for condonation of delay and it is accordingly rejected.
Furthermore, the appellant did not file departmental appeal in time against the order of his removal from service which he filed long after the prescribed period of thirty days and it was rightly dismissed as being time-barred. Therefore, the appeal before this Tribunal is also time-barred and incompetent in view of the case reported in PLD 1990 SC 951 (Chairman, PIAC v. Nasim Malik), and is liable to be dismissed.
5. On merits also the appellant has no case. The appellant was charged for a heinous offence of attempting to commit sodomy with a school-going child and there being confessional statement, the charge against him was proved at regular inquiry. Therefore, the competent authority was justified in terminating the services of the appellant as such a person is not worth retention in service of a disciplined Force and the impugned order does not call for interference.
6. Both on merits as well as on point of limitation, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.