' FAKHRUDDiN H. SHAIKH (CHAI&MAN).-This appeal against the order of his compulsory retirement from service dated 29-12-1975 filed by the appellant, must be dismissed on the simple ground that it is hopelessly out of time. Originally he was dismissed from service after regular enquiry by Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Baluchistan vide his order dated 24-11-1975. Against this order he filed appeal before Inspector-General, Police, Quetta, who converted the penalty of dismissal into that of compulsorily retirement vide his order dated 29.12-1975.
2. The provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution were extended to Baluchistan vide AA XXX1V of 1976 of the Parliament which came into force on 19-5-1976. According to this Act the present Tribunal was invested with exclusive jurisdiction to entertain service appeals. Section 6 of the Baluchistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974 further laid down that the aggrieved Government servant could file appeal within 90 days of the law of the Parliament regarding extension of Article 212 to Baluchistan. According to section 6, the appellant should have preferred this appeal by 19th of August 1976.
3. The appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay in which he states that he was unaware about the actual period of limitation within which he was required to file appeal. This plea in substance amounts to pleading ignorance of law. The appellant has delayed the filing of this appeal for more than 5 months I. e. Actually after 8 months of the final order of the Inspector- General, Police. He has stated that in other Provinces the period of limitation is 6 months and that he was under the impression that in this province also the same period has been prescribed. Even if this plea is accepted, the appellant has come to this Tribunal after 8 months of the impugned order.
4. His further plea that the present Tribunal was constituted in November, 1916 and that the time should be reckoned from this date is not tenable either because even before the constitution of the present Tribunal there was a Tribunal to hear service appeals. In fact the present Tribunal was re- constituted ride notification dated 17th November, 1976. The appellant was at liberty to have filed his appeal before the Tribunal already existing before the reconstitution of this Tribunal.
6. We are therefore of a view that the appellant has failed to render satisfactorily explanation of condonation of the delay in filing this appeal It is accordingly dismissed as time barred.