1988 PLC(CS) 509

IHSANUL HAQ CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN) .--The relevant facts for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant was serving as a Constable in Punjab Police and while posted at Police Station, Tandlianwala, District Faisalabad, he absented himself on 14-2-1986 without sanctioned leave. The Respondent No.l, therefore, decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. The appellant was served with show-cause notice dated 23-10-1986. Although notice was received by the appellant yet he did not submit reply thereto. Thereafter, he was sent for Orderly Room hearing but he did not avail this opportunity. This way the Respondent No. was constrained to dismiss the appellant from service vide his order dated 23-10-1986. The. appellant assailed this order through a time-barred appeal which was filed on 18-7-1987. It was submitted that the appellant was sick, therefore, became absent. This appeal was dismissed by the respondent No.2, vide order dated 22-9-1987. The appellant, thereafter, filed second appeal before the I.G. Police, Punjab, on 24-11-1987 but he was informed that second appeal was not competent.

2. It is in this background that the appellant filed the present appeal on 11-1-1988. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record. The appellant in support of his plea of illness has appended four certificates from Dr. Munawar Ali, Medical Officer, Basic Health Unit, 433-G.B. These certificates do not inspire any confidence and on the face of the same they appear to have been issued at one and the same time. It was for this reason that the dates in certificates F&G were changed while in Annexure H the rest has been recommended upto 27-10-1987. The year is obviously incorrect. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that the appellant was dismissed from the service by Respondent No.l on 23-10-1986 and through these certificates the appellant has tried to cover the period from 15-2-1986 upto 27-10-1986.

3. The appellant if suffering from illness should have made application for grant of leave duly supported by medical certificate or at least when show-cause notice was served on him through special messenger, he should have explained the position and submitted the medical certificates. This all goes a long way to show that the story of illness is a mere concoction and medical certificates bogus.

4. It is noteworthy that the appellant is resident of Chak No.166-G. B . Sitiana as is clear from address given in the title of this appeal as well as on foot of his Departmental appeal whereas he has been shown to have getting the treatment from the Medical Officer, Basic Health Unit 433, G.B. Jhok Ditta Tehsil Jaranwala, District Faisalabad.

5. The present appeal is also barred by limitation. The last order in the field is dated 22-9-1987 while the present appeal was filed in this Tribunal on 11-1-1988. The appellant was so negligent that he did not care to submit application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held the A view that in the absence of application for condonation, there is no jurisdiction with the Court to condone the delay. The reference can be made to the case of Syed Zawar Hussain v. Ministry of Planning and Development and others reported as 1986 S C M R 1826. The relevant portion of Supreme Court's dictum in this case reads as under: -"The petitioner, who appeared in person, admitted that he had not applied for condonation of delay before the Tribunal. The order of the relevant Tribunal in the circumstances is unexceptionable. The petition is accordingly dismissed."

6. The appellant at the most could have justified the delay with the plea that he under wrong advice filed the second appeal with the I.-G.P. It is now well-settled proposition of law that wrong advice or pursuing remedy in a wrong forum is no ground for condonation of delay. There is a long chain of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the last in the series is reported as 1985 S C 1 R 903. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:-

"The only ground urged in excuse of delay is that a senior Counsel had erroneously filed the appeal before the Letters Patent Bench against the order of learned Single Judge and the tine consumed in pursuing that remedy may be excluded."

7. This is not all. The appellant has neither arrayed the I.-G.P. as Respondent nor impugned his order that second appeal is not competent. This way he tacitly himself admitted that he wrongly filed the second appeal before the I.-G.P. This appeal although was drafted on 4th of January, 1988 yet was presented on 11-1-1988. This fully established the negligence of the appellant in pursuing his remedy.

8. The upshot of this discussion is that this appeal is dismissed both on merits as well as time-barred.

S.Q./194/Sr.P

Appeal dismissed.