' ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, J.---This Appeal No,260 of 1992 filed by the appellant Mst. Sirajun-Munira against the judgment dated 18-6-1991 of the Federal Service Tribunal was earlier dismissed by this Court on 22-1-1994. The appellant moved Review Petition No, 36 of 1994 for the review of the, said order. The review petition was heard on 14-6-1994 and notice to respondent was issued for 3-7- 1994. After hearing the counsel for the parties on this date the learned Judges observed "we had formed an opinion that the review petition merits dismissal and ordered accordingly". However, while going through the record at the time of writing the judgment, certain glaring facts came to light which necessitated rehearing of the review petition". Consequently, it was ordered that the review petition be fixed for rehearing. Subsequently this review petition was allowed by order, dated 12th December, 1995 with the direction that the appeal be fixed for rehearing.
2. The relevant background which led to the filing of the appeal is that the appellant was employed as Midwife in the respondent Directorate. She was removed from service on the ground of wilful absernce and negligence in performance of duty by order, dated 26th May, 1990. The appellant approached the departmental authority in appeal which was rejected on 10th July, 1990. The legality of these orders was challenged before the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed by the impugned order as time-barred and also on merits.
3. The charge of wilful absence from duty was brought against the appellant in the circumstances that she was allowed 30 days earned leave from 2-10-1989 to 31-10-1989. She was also granted leave on full pay from 1-11-1989 to 1-12-1989 and on medical ground from 2-12-1989 to 28-12-1989. It appears that she again applied for leave from 30-12-1989 to 26-1-1990 on the basis of medical certificate but she was directed to appear before Medical Superintendent Islamabad within a week for second medical opinion. The Medical Superintendent by letter dated 29-1-1990 informed the Director-General that she (appellant) did not report in his officer for second medical opinion. But in spite of that she again on the basis of an Out-door Ticket from Federal Government Services Hospital requested for leave from 27-1-1990 to 23-2-1990. She was again directed by the Department on 8-2-1990 and the Medical Superintendent on 15-2-1990 to report for second medical opinion. She was, however, bold enough not to care for these directions and again on the same Out-door Ticket asked for leave from 24-2-1990 to 28-3-1990. It was through telegram, dated 26th February, 1990 that the Department warned the appellant that in spite of office telegrams dated 15-1-1990 and 8-2-1990 she failed to appear for second medical opinion and if this time she again did not report then disciplinary action will be initiated against her. On 3-4-1990 she was reminded by the Department that in spite of office telegram dated 15-1-1990, 8-2-1990, 26-2-1990 and 11-3-1990 she avoided appearance for second medical opinion and if this time through this final direction she did not report within 3 days for the second medical opinion, then her services will be terminated. The Medical Superintendent on 22-4-1990 informed the Department that the appellant did not report. But in spite of this, appellant again applied for leave from 26-4-1990 to 23- 5-1990 on the basis of the same device. It appears that on 29-4-1990 she appeared before the Civil Surgeon who confirmed the genuineness of only one medical certificate issued for leave from 26- 4-1990 to 23-5-1990. It was in these circumstances that the appellant was removed from service on 26-5-1990.
4. The above facts indicate that the conduct of the appellant all along remained obstinate and contumacious. It appears that she had taken it for granted that the department was bound to grant her leave on the basis of medical certificate she produced and that they would not enquire about the genuineness of the certificates. It at all in spite of the inherent defect in the medical certificate for leave from 26-4-1990 to 23-5-1990 as the Medical Superintendent has neither confirmed the existence of the ailment nor has verified the identity of the appellant, this certificate is accepted as correct, than it shows that the appellant fearing the fake nature of the other medical, certificates either did not produce them or if they had been produced they were not held genuine. The plea of the appellant that she did not know of the telegram, show-cause notice etc. Appears to be ridiculous because she was served through her home address which is situated in T & T Colony. It could not be shown as to how she came to know of the final notice wherein she was warned that if she failed to appear within 3 days then her services will be terminated. Moreover, in her reply to the application for additional document she admits knowledge of show-cause notice.
It is also established on record that she continued residing in her official residence in T & T Colony.
In any case there is absolutely no explanation for her absence from 23-5-1990 to 26-5-1990. It is also strange to note that she filed departmental appeal the same date i.e, 26-5-1990 on which she was removed from service. It is, thus, clear that she knew about the proceedings but did not bother about it till an adverse order against her interest was passed. The perusal of the memo of review petition would show that the judgment of this Court has been challenged on ground of limitation only and not on merits. Therefore, on merits the orders of Departmental Authority and the Federal Service Tribunal are perfectly correct.
5. The Federal Service Tribunal was also correct to hold that the appeal before it was time-barred.
The appellant conceded that the appeal is being filed after prescribed period of limitation, therefore, she submitted an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. In this application it is admitted that the order of departmental authority in her appeal was intimated to her on 15-7-1990. The appeal before the Tribunal should, therefore, have been filed on 15-8-1990 but it was filed on 18-10-1990 with a delay of more than 2 months. This cannot be disputed that under the law the delay of each day in filing the appeal is to be reasonably explained. In the application for condonation the reason for delay has been stated in para.2 which reads; "that the petitioner's departmental appeal was rejected on 10-7-1990. At that time the petitioner was pregnant. She was under medical treatment. She was operated on 8-8-1990 and gave birth to a female baby. She remained on bed 6/8 weeks under medical advice." For this malady she relies on the medical certificate dated 30-9-1990 issued from a private Clinic wherein operation is stated to have been performed on 8-8-1990 and she was advised rest for 6 weeks. The appellant has not made any effort to prove the identity and admissibility of this certificate in any manner. It shows to have been signed For Abrar Surgery (Pvt.) Ltd". However, it could not be explained as to whether the authority signing it was competent to do so. In any case even if in spite of its doubtful nature if the period of six weeks is counted from the date of operation then it would end on 20-9-1990 but the appeal was filed on 18-10-1990 i.e, 28 days thereafter. Appellant did not hesitate to make misstatement in the application showing that she remained on bed for 6/8 weeks under medical advice. Even if the period of rest is read as 8 weeks then the last date for filing the appeal comes to 5-10-1990 and in that case the appeal would be barred by 13 days. Probably being conscious of this delay she managed to obtain another certificate on 7-3-1994; after about four years of the actual ailment and submitted it alongwith the review petition to show that she was advised rest till 20-10-1990. To say the least it was neither proper for the appellant nor for that matter for the concerned Doctor to go such out of the way to change the course of judicial proceedings by these manoeuvred and unbecoming tactics. It was noted in the order of this Court of 3rd July, 1994 whereby the review petition was fixed for rehearing that if six weeks time is counted from 30-9-1990 which is the date on which the certificate was issued then six weeks rest was to expire on 15-11-1990 and appeal having been filed on 18-10-1990 was apparently within time.
However, neither the appellant has pleaded her case on these lines nor such inference can be supported from the material on record. It is stated in the certificate that the appellant was operated on 8-8-1990 and was advised rest for six weeks. The reasonable inference is that six weeks is to be reckoned from the date of ailment. But the stand of the appellant, as taken in the application from condonation, is that after the operation on 8-8-1990 she remained on bed for 6/8 weeks under medical advice. The appellant also herself did not consider the period of rest to run from the date of certificate; firstly, because in that case there would have been no reason for her to submit an application for condonation of delay. Secondly, she was not required to obtain another certificate after about four years when she was advised rest till 20-10-1990. And thirdly, the appellant in ground "(a)" of her review petition admits that she remained under treatment till 20- 10-1990.
The impugned judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal contains cogent reasons for dismissal of the appeal on merits as well as on limitation and we find no justification to differ with it. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.