1985 PLC(CS) 261

Appellant Qadar. Bakhsh, ex‑Warder No. 1546 had made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Inspector‑General of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore Superintendent Headquarter Jails, Multan, and Superintendent, New Central Jail Bahawalpur.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that order passed by respondent No. 3 and consequently confirmed by the respondent No.2 and the order, dated 1‑6‑1982 passed by the Inspector -General of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore be set aside. He has further prayed that he be declared to be continuous in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice on 4‑1‑1982 by Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur that while the appellant posted as Incharge Circle No.2 during the night 11/12‑7‑1981, nine prisoners started to break out the walls of the cells and succeeded in escape, thus, the appellant was guilty of negligence of the duties, which resulted in escape of prisoners. The appellant replied to this show‑cause notice but the reply was found unsatisfactory. The appellant was dismissed from service by Superintendent New Central Jail, Bahawalpur subject to the confirmation by the Superintendent Headquarters Jail, Multan. Superintendent Jail, Multan, also confirmed the said punishment. The appellant filed an appeal before the Inspector‑General of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore which was dismissed on 1‑6‑1982. Hence this appeal.

3‑A. I have heard the parties. A stand has been taken by the learned District Attorney that the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred and is not maintainable. It has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that the appeal of the appellant was rejected by the I.‑G. Prisons, Punjab on 1‑6‑1982 and he was required to file the appeal before this Tribunal within 30 days of this date. But, the appellant has filed this appeal on 19‑3‑1983. Thus the appeal is time‑barred by more than 8 months, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand submitted that this delay has happened due to the reason that a review petition before respondent No.1 was filed by the appellant which was done to obviate further litigation. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the delay in submission be condoned as request made by the appellant in his application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, and reasons given therein.

5. I have gone through the record of this case to adjudicate the important issue raised by the learned District Attorney. I find that the appeal was rejected by the I.‑G. Prisons, Punjab, Lahore vide his order, dated 1‑6‑1982 and the appellant should have filed the appeal to this Tribunal within 30 days. The reasons given by the appellant in his application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act are not convincing and does not satisfy me to condone the delay. No further review petition was admissible to respondent No.1 under the rules and the appellant should have not wasted the time in filing unnecessary review petition to respondent No.1. Thus, it was an obvious negligence on the part of the appellant and no case for condoning the delay ha, been made out by the appellant.

6. Keeping in view the above analysis, the appeal is time‑barred more than 8 months and is dismissed as such on this score alone.

There will be no order as to costs.

M.Y.M. Appeal dismissed.