Appellant with Mr. Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate, Mr. M. A. Iqbal has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, to get his retirement declared null and void. He was removed under M. L. R. 114 on 13-3-1972. The appeal was filed on 5-11-1974.
2. Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act places six months limitation for appeals, from the establishment of the Tribunal which came into being on 22-2-1974, yet there is an exception to this general rule K incorporated in section 6 of the said Act. The special provision applies to proceedings before any civil Court at the relevant the. Section 6 further reduces it to 90 days, from the date of abatement, effective from contemplated inception. All appeals stand abated by operation of law, independent of any effective order. Section 7 of the Act contemplates extension of the so limited by sections 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act.
3. In order to take advantage of the said provision, an affidavit and application for condonation have been filed along with the memo. Of appeal. Reasons given therein are filing of a writ petition in the High Court on 12-3-1973, admitted on 14-3-1973 and the order of abatement passed on 12-7- 1974, besides illness of appellant's counsel and lack of effort on the part of appellant to contact the counsel personally, when post office corres--pondence failed due to changed address of the new counsel. In the circumstances it is prayed that all this the be excluded from computation of period of limitation.
4. From the above narration, it is absolutely evident that the application is misconstrued. Self- indulgence, negligence and ignorance of law, are pleaded, which do not form sufficient cause.
Medical Certificate of illness is not produced, personal effort to contact was evidently never made, nor is it shown to have been made. Entire reliance on correspondence shows a negligence, which does not call for favourable judicial discretion. Wrong advice, if ever tendered, cannot be deemed to have been the result of due care and caution. There being no writ petition pending on 22-2-1974, the only provision applicable i.e. Section 4, allows six months the. The Act having come into force by then and the Tribunal having been established, six months' the allowed, would expire on 23-8-1974.
Subsequent effort of the appellant to file a writ petition would not attract application of section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act nor section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude period during which litigation was conducted in any other Court because no considered opinion would have misled the counsel or his client as to forum in face of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as welt as section 3 of the Service Tribunals Act. If the appellant was not careful enough to gauge his rights and to enforce them in proper forum, his mere efforts to explore the remedy in a Court which had no jurisdictions whatsoever will not entitle him to extension of the. Time started to run against him on 22-2-1974. No subsequent disability or inability to sue stops it. In this context limitation expired on 23-8-1974, and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone three months' delay to consider the appeal within the.
5. Before taking leave of the case, misconduct of the counsel needs also be noticed. Without referring to his own default or failure on the part of his client and without grasping the maxim of law that "ignorance of law is no excuse", he has made it a personal issue. He seems to think that his appearance calls for admission irrespective of merits of the case. Rejection as such adversely affects his rights. So it does, but only the rights which be did not duly exercise and on his alertness, which was absent. The conduct is highly censurable and goes against the utility of the institution.
An Advocate is -a functionary of Courts and Tribunals. He is there to help in formation of correct conclusion instead of identifying himself with a cause. He should have realised that his client's casual attitude to contact him and then to file a writ petition ; when he was clearly debarred by section 3 of the Service Tribunals Act, would not call for discretion of condonation, The argument, therefore, of prejudiced approach was a misconduct which is highly condemnable. He is warned to be careful in future otherwise the Bar Council will be approached to take disciplinary action against him.
6. The appeal as pointed out is the-barred by as much as three months, and cannot be admitted.
It is dismissed in limine.