' RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---This is an appeal against Order No, 2390, dated 19-2- 1994 of Inspector-General of Police whereby the representation/application of appellant for inclusion of his name in the List 'F' and subsequent promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police was rejected by the respondent.
2. The facts as contained in the Memorandum of Appeal are that the appellant is a Sub-Inspector in the Department of Police. He was posted in the Police Station, Samahni in the year 1992. At the time of his posting in the said police station the law and order situation in the Ilaqa was highly critical, grave and out of the control of the local administration. The appellant, during his posting in the police station arrested sixty-two accused and four proclaimed offenders. The appellant took special interest in investigation, completion and prosecution of the cases and thereby substantial increase was shown in the rate of punishment for which a recommendatory letter was issued on 17-10-1992 by the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Mirpur and further recommendations were made by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police on 20-10-1992. The performance of the appellant was not only appreciated and lauded by the Superior Officers of the appellant -but also case was appreciated and recommended by the Ilaqa Magistrate and Raja Muhammad Akram Khan, Minister for Health. The respondent, despite the recommendations of the Superior Police Officers and other personalities kept the matter of the accelerated promotion. Of the appellant in abeyance. In the similar circumstances Sardar Kabir Khan was allowed accelerated promotion whereas in the matter of appellant the respondent adopted different course and proceeded to reject the case of the appellant with mala fide intention and thus the appellant was discriminated against in respect of his promotion.
3. The written objections have been filed on behalf of the respondent. The respondent has denied the averments made in the Memorandum of Appeal and has also objected to the maintainability of the appeal on the grounds that the appellant has failed to avail of the departmental remedy and has no locus standi and legal right to file this appeal.
4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
5. The perusal of the record shows that the impugned order was communicated to the appellant on 26-3-1994. This fact has also been admitted in para. 11 of the appeal that the order of rejection of representation was received by the appellant on 26-3-1994. The appellant was bound to prefer an appeal on the date when the impugned order was communicated to him. The limitation in this case started on 26-3-1994 and the period of limitation expired on 24-4-1994. The present appeal is time-barred by two days. The appellant has not filed any application for condonation of delay and has also failed to satisfy the Tribunal as to why he filed this appeal beyond the period of limitation prescribed for the purpose. We, therefore, hold this appeal as time-barred and declare that the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this score.
6. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the order of Inspector-General of Police. The respondent has taken objection regarding maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the appellant has failed to avail the departmental remedy as provided under first proviso to section 4 of the Act which requires an aggrieved civil servant to first approach the competent Departmental Authority and after waiting for a period of ninety days the appeal is to be filed before the Service Tribunal. The counsel for the appellant has argued that this order was passed by the Inspector- General of Police on the representation of the appellant. This case is covered under the provisions of section 21 of the Civil Servants Act, 1976 wherein it has been provided that a representation is to be filed against an order where no provision for appeal or review exists. Section 21 of Civil Servants Act visualises that there should be first an order which is in respect of the terms and conditions of the service of a civil servant. The aggrieved civil servant is entitled to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority and in case the order is passed by the Government a review lies with the Government. In case there exists no provision for appeal or review of the order an aggrieved civil servant is allowed to file a representation against the order which is affecting his terms and conditions of service. It is clear from the section that in order to attract the provision of section 21 an order must exist against which remedy can be sought by way of appeal, review or representation.
The record of this case shows that there was no such order against which the appellant filed his representation to the Inspector-General of Police. The matter of accelerated promotion was pending before the Inspector-General of Police. The appellant had submitted an application for consideration of his case. If he termed his application before the Inspector-General of Police as a representation that application shall not be a representation in the sense in which it is taken under the provisions of section 21 of the Civil Servants Act. In other words there was no previous order against which the appellant had filed a representation before the Inspector-General of Police. The order under appeal in our view was original order whereby the request of the appellant for accelerated promotion was refused. The appellant failed to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority and has come to the Tribunal without first seeking the departmental remedy. The appeal is also liable to be dismissed on this ground and we order accordingly.
7. In view of the above we are of the view that the present appeal is not competent before this Tribunal and is liable to be dismissed. On the grounds stated above. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal without making any order as to costs.