' ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).---The facts leading to this appeal as stated in the memo. Of the appeal are that the appellant who was ex-serviceman, was appointed as U.D.C. In G.H.Q. With effect from 8-5-1993. He was placed on one year's probation. On 3-5-1994, he went to G.H.Q. M.I.
Room on Special Sick Report for medical check-up. He was admitted in Military Hospital, Rawalpindi, on 7-5-1994, where he remained under medical treatment. It was diagnosed that he was suffering from "Schizophrenia (295)". The Medical Board was constituted to examine him medically. After his examination, he was declared completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind in the Armed Forces as a civilian due to this disease. Consequently, he was invalided out of service vide order dated 13-8-1994. Against this order, the appellant made an appeal to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence and having received no response, he approached this Tribunal vide Appeal No, 75(R) of 1995 with a prayer that the impugned order dated 13-8-1994 be set aside and he may be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
2. The appeal was heard on 2-4-1995 and the order passed on 31-5-1995, and the case was remanded to the respondent-department with direction to reconstitute the Medical Board as required under F.R. 10-A(e) and to report back for compliance within a period of two months. It was further directed to the department that the members of the Medical Board should be other than those who had already examined the appellant in the first Medical Board and the report be given to the appellant.
3. Consequently the respondent-department reconstituted the second Medical Board consisting of persons who were not the members of the first Medical Board as required under F.R. 10-A(c).
4. The appellant was examined by the Board, however, was not considered fit for retention in service. Accordingly, he was informed vide letter dated 28-81995. The appellant being unsatisfied with the action of the respondent-department has come again to this Tribunal through the present appeal alleging that the direction of the Tribunal has not yet been implemented.
5. Raja Muhammad Asghar Khan, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant whereas the respondent-department was represented by Mr. Khalid Abbas Khan, Federal Counsel, along with M/s. Ghayyur Abbas, Assistant, Establishment Division, Mr. Muhammad Shabbir-ur-Rehman, GSO-III (Civilian) and Mr. Muhammad Ramzan, Superintendent, G.H.Q. As a Departmental Representatives.
6. Pleading the case of the appellant, the learned counsel stated that, although the Tribunal was pleased to remand the case to the departmental authority for re-examination of his case under F.R. 10-A(c), but the department failed to do the needful,.As no reviewing Board was constituted in consultation with D.-G. Health, but the case was referred to the same authority. Secondly that no findings of the second Medical Board, were conveyed to the appellant, as such he was condemned unheard. He further alleged, that proceedings of the Board were influenced by the opinion of the earlier Board.
7. The Federal Counsel, on the other hand resisted the appeal and vehemently rebutted the allegations as levelled by the counsel for the appellant against respondent-department. He informed that in compliance with the orders contained in the judgment dated 31-5-1995 of the Tribunal, a second Medical Board was convened on 27th July, 1995 which consisted of persons who were not members of the first Medical Board, as required under F.R. 10-A(c). The appellant again was not considered fit for retention in service, by the second Board too, .And the appellant was accordingly informed vide letter, dated 28th August, 1995. As such, the allegation of the appellant that his Review Medical Board was not arranged as required under F.R. 10-A(c) and not new members included does not hold water.
8. Yet another point of limitation has been raised vide comments. It has been asserted that the present appeal was barred by time as it was preferred against the decision communicated to the appellant on 28th August, 1995, whereas the appeal had been filed during December, 1995.
9. We have heard the parties at length and have gone through the documents available on the file.
10. We find that, in compliance with the direction of the Tribunal, a second Medical Board was constituted of the members who were not included in the previous Medical Board. The appellant was examined and found unfit for any service. As such the contention of appellant that, it was the same Board is not correct. The appellant also alleged that the Board constituted had the same members. The respondent side produced a document at Bar, which showed that the members of the second Medical Board were different from that of the first Medical Board, as such his allegation was not correct. The appellant also, objected, that such Board was not constituted under the direction of the D.-G. Health, the respondent party produced at Bar a document which indicated that such power of D.-G. Health were delegated to the Military Medical Directorate, as such, that objection of appellant stood rebutted.
11. The perusal of the documents show, that appellant was communicated medical report of the second Medical Board which although denied by the appellant, was supplied to him on 28th August, 1995. However, he filed the appeal (present one) by post which reached the Tribunal on 26th December, 1995, the same is endorsed on the memo. Of the appeal.
12. As a matter of fact, he should have approached the Tribunal within a period of one month i,e, up to 29th September, 1995. However, he filed his appeal before the Tribunal much after that, as such it is also hit by time limitation.
13. The upshot of the above discussion is that, the direction of the Tribunal stands fully implemented. The appeal is also hit by time limitation. For these we do not accept it accordingly it is dismissed, on both the counts.