' MIJHAMMAD AYUB KHAN (MEMBER).- -Learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents have been heard and record perused.
2. This appeal has got a peculiar factual and legal background and involves the following two questions for consideration of the Tribunal:-
(i) Whether the appeal in hand is time-barred or not?
(ii) Whether the Executive Director, PIMS was competent to accept the resignation of the appellant?
LIMITATION
3. Limitation is a most important crucial point in the judicial system and ordinarily law takes its smooth course. However, in exceptional A circumstances, Courts are competent to condone the delay in appropriate cases on compassionate grounds, if proved.
4. The appellant was appointed as Medical Officer (B-17) in the Islamabad Medical Hospital Complex. Now PIMS, with effect from 6-11-1986 and applied for grant of three months Ex-Pakistan Study Leave with effect from 7-8-1996 to 6-11-1996 which was sanctioned by the Competent Authority by Notification dated 22-7-1996 (copy available at Annexure-A, Page-6 of the appeal file) but he did not attend his office on expiry of the Study Leave due to alleged illness as he could not complete the study for which he had gone abroad and requested the Executive Director, PIMS, for grant of one year further Ex-Pakistan Study Leave with an alternative prayer that if further leave of one year is not granted/extended: "then his resignation may be accepted at the expiry of his leave i,e, with effect from 6-11-1996.
' As the leave application for one year was coupled with an alternative proposal i,e, in the event of its non-acceptance, it may be considered as his resignation from service which may be accepted.
It appears that the Competent Authority did not extend the grant of one year's leave in the exigencies of service but, an the contrary, accepted his resignation from service under the impugned order dated 17-11-1997 (copy available at page-9, Annexure-C of the file) which reads:-- "You are hereby informed that your resignation had already been accepted by the Competent Authority on 6-11-1996 and you were struck off the strength of PIMS, therefore, the said Charge Assumption Report cannot be accepted."
' The appellant, however, submitted his joining report on 7-11-1997.
5. It is considers. Just and advisable to reproduce in verbatim the application dated 7-10-1996 which reads:- "Re: Extension of leave/and or Resignation. Sir, ' This is to inform you that I am recently recovered from severe RTI (allergic) due to which my health is greatly affected by this prolonged illness.
' I would, therefore, not be able to join my duty as scheduled. I would be extremely grateful if you would kindly extend my leave for one year in order to accomplish my goals.
' If my leave was not granted then please accept my Resignation at the expiry of my leave (i,e, 6-11- 1996).
Sincerely, (Sd.) 7-10-1996 (Dr. Fida Muhammad Khan.)"
' On this application one Dr. Asif reported that: "Resignation my be accepted.
(Sd.) Asif 8-10-1996."
' JED ' The remarks of the JED are as under: "As proposed.
(Sd.) 10/X."
' ED ' The Executive Director, however, finally accepted the resignation-of the appellant in the following words: "Leave cannot be extended as per BOG (Board of Governors) decision.
' However, your resignation is accepted w,e,f, 6-11-1996.
(Sd.) 18/X."
' Lastly Dr. Asif remarked: "SAD-1 ' Please convey him.
(Sd.) Asif."
6. From the above it appears that the appellant had sent his application for leave for a period of one year on 7-10-1996 and thereafter he remained absent and reported for duty on 7-11-1997. In other words, it can now safely be determined/said that the Competent Authority had never sanctioned his leave but despite that he availed the leave for one year wilfully and thereafter reported for duty on 7-11-1997 but prior to that his request for grant of the said leave had been rejected and the resignation was accepted as his alternative prayer in the application for grant of one year's leave and he was informed by a letter dated 22-10-1996.
7. About the acceptance of his resignation by the Competent Authority the appellant was firstly informed on 22-10-1996 and then by an order dated 17-11-1997 (wrongly indicated as "17-11-1996" in the note-sheet recorded by the Assistant Registrar of this Tribunal on 12-2-1999). A glance at the letter dated 22-10-1996 indicates that the appellant was kept informed about the result of the refusal of his leave and acceptance of his resignation in the alternative but despite that he remained absent for a long time and preferred a departmental appeal to the Executive Director, PIMS on 18-11-1997 which was rejected on 19-12-1997. Thereafter, he submitted another appeal to the Secretary, Ministry of Health on 7-10-1998 which was also rejected on 14-1-1999 on the ground of limitation and then he submitted the present service appeal before this Tribunal on 3-2-1999. The departmental appeals are hopelessly time-barred and it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as PLD 1990 SC 951 that when a departmental appeal is time-barred, the appeal before the Service Tribunal also becomes incompetent.
Moreover, under the law, only one departmental appeal is provided whereas the appellant has filed two departmental appeals i,e, first before the Executive Director, PIMS and then before the Secretary, Ministry of Health. In the case reported as 1998 SCMR 882 the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has, however, observed that: "an aggrieved civil servant does not have unfettered discretion to tile representation/appeal before the next higher authority at any time and that any omission, slackness, negligence without specifying sufficient cause with regard to the commencing period of representation as contained in section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, cannot be easily ignored or overlooked,"
8. Besides, there are certain well-known legal maxims which usually hurdle a litigant in a Court of law and they are: "(a) ignorance of law is no excuse;
(b) delay defeats equity;
(c) time and tide wait for none; and
(d) law helps the vigilant and not the indolent. "
' The latest judgment, in this respect, contained in 1999 PLC (C.S.) 25 is referred to wherein the appeal found belated was dismissed with the remarks that: "law would help the diligent and not the indolent."
' It has also been held in 1988 SCMR 1354 followed by 1998 PLC (C.S.) 1007 that, after lapse of the prescribed period of limitation, the doors of justice are closed and no plea of injustice, hardship or ignorance can be of any avail to an appellant unless the delay in filing an appeal was justified/legally accounted for and the appellant is legally bound to justify reasons for each day's delay and in this respect reliance is also placed on the following authorities: "(i) 1990 SCMR 1519 (In this case even one day's delay was not condoned.)
(ii) 1993 SCMR 17;
(iii) 1998 SCMR 307(b) and 785 (B);
(iv) 1999 MI, D (Kar.) 330 (E);
(v) PLD 1988 SC 144 and
(vi) 'PLD 1995 SC 396."
Moreover, it is a fundamental principle of law that limitation when once starts, in no case, it can be stopped. Even no valid reasons have been given in the application for condonation of delay.
9. The appeal is also devoid and bereft of merits pursuant to the ruling of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan contained in 1987 SCMR 92(b) wherein it has been held that when an appeal is dismissed on limitation its merits need not be gone into.
10. Absence from duty is a grave irregularity specially when it is committed by a Gazetted Officer who happens to be a member of the noble Medical Profession. The appellant's contention of illness is a bald statement short of actual proof. Initially the appellant had requested for Ex-Pakistan Study Leave which he might have fulfilled and achieved his objective but at the cost of his service as is evident from the subsequent events. He obviously preferred his personal objective to that of public objectives and hence he should mourn his own star and none else, inclusive of the Respondent- Organization i,e, PIMS.
11. A perusal of his departmental appeal dated 7-11-1998 also indicates that besides his own signatures thereon it also contains recommendations of the following public representatives:-- (Sd.)
"1. Moulvi Syed Ameer Khan, Senator, North Waziristan Agency. (Sd.)
2. Moulana Muhammad Din-Dar, Member, Qoumi Assembly of Pakistan, North Waziristan Agency.
3. Strongly recommended for just and n/c. (Sd.)
' Javed Ibrahim Paracha, MNA/Chairman, Standing Committee of Railway, National Assembly of Pakistan, Islamabad (Sd.)
4. Haji Gul Afridi, Member, Senate of Pakistan (FATA). (Sd.)
5 . Haji Baz Gul, (illegible) MNA; National Assembly of Pakistan, Islamabad.
(Sd.)
6. Haji Zareen Khan Mangal, Member National Assembly, NA-28 Tribal Area, Kurram Agency.
7. Strongly recommended. (Sd.)
' Haji Inayat Khan, MNA, NA."
' The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in this respect, has taken serious view of such-like political interference in service matters on the part of the public representatives in its judgment contained in 1998 PLC (C.S.) 1089 and similar is the case of the judgment of the Lahore High Court contained in 1998 PLC (C.S.) Lah.
832. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan had summoned the MPA, who had interfered in transfer of a civil servant/Government servant, but, on his assurance not to .Interfere in future, he was let off although simultaneously it was observed by Their Lordships that the public representatives can be disqualified for interfering in such-like matters.
12. Pursuant to the aforesaid discussion, this appeal fails on limitation and is hereby dismissed.
Since the appeal is dismissed on limitation, therefore, the second question posed/formulated by us in para.2 of this judgment needs not be discussed. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. However, copies of this judgment shall be mailed to the appellant, .Respondent-Organization and all other concerned as required under rule 21(1) of the Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974.