KALBI-I-ABBAS Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑ This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Syed Kalb‑i‑Abbas petitioner and is directed against judgment of the Punjab Services Tribunal dated 12 October, 1980.
2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner was a Naib‑Tehsildar in Central Record Office of the Settlement Department. He was removed from service by respondent No.1 on 5 January, 1970. From that time onwards he has been challenging the order of his removal before different forums. Before filing the said appeal he claims that he filed the appeal before the Services Tribunal by sending it through registered post addressed to the Chairman on 31 January, 1978 i.e. 8 years after his removal. The appeal of the petitioner which was heard and dismissed by the Services Tribunal had been filed on 19 February, 1980. The finding of the Services Tribunal is that the petitioner had not been pursuing his case diligently before the proper forums. He challenged the order of his removal by way of writ petition but did not disclose the date when the writ petition was disposed of. Then he made a representation to a Provincial Minister incharge of Settlement etc. on 1 September 1972 and received a reply from him on 16 October, 1972. But nothing came out of the same as he had already sought remedy in the High Court. The petitioner also did not disclose as to what he did after his writ petition was disposed of or as to whether he filed a departmental appeal if any. He also challenged the removal order before the Civil Judge on 24th July, 1975. Eventually the District Judge ruled on 20 October, 1977 that he should seek his remedy in the Services Tribunal. However the petitioner could not establish that he had in fact filed his appeal before the Services Tribunal on 31 January, 1978. Apparently he waited for two years before filing a copy of the said appeal on 19 February 1980. Since the petitioner could not explain the delay in filing the appeal, the Services Tribunal dismissed his appeal on the ground of limitation.
3. Before us learned counsel for the petitioner half heatedly argued. that his appeal before the Services Tribunal was in time but the finding of the Services Tribunal is that his appeal was dismissed as time‑barred. Since this is the position, no case is made out for interference. The result is that this petition is dismissed.
4. M.I./K‑49/S Petition dismissed.