MUHAMMAD ISMAIL Versus

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J .‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from order dated 9‑8‑1980 of the Central Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby the petitioner's appeal was dismissed as time barred.

2. Rana Ghulam Sarwar Khan, petitioner, an Assistant Foreman of POF, Wah Cantonment was Departmentally proceeded against, as a result whereof his promotion was stopped for six months and he was also censured for absence of duty. This order was passed by the punishing authority on 22nd of July, 1976. The petitioner filed a Departmental appeal which was dismissed on 16‑7‑1978. Thereafter, instead of filing an appeal before the Service Tribu nal, he sent several representations to the President, which were not forwarded by the authorities concerned. The last representation was withheld on 10‑6‑1980. Taking advantage of this date the petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Central Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which having been dismissed, he has sought leave to appeal therefrom.

3. While not disputing that the period of limitation under section 4 of the Act is thirty days from the final order, the petitioner has, relying on Special Pakistan Army Order No. 3 of 1970, argued that he was within his right to make representation to the President, and if his representation was which held, he could file an appeal before the Service Tribunal within thirty days of the order withholding the representation. The uncertified copy of what the petitioner called as S.P.A.O. No, 3 of 1970. produced by him for our perusal, does not show that a "representation" could be made by the petitioner to the President after the dismissal of his appeal, as, according to the definition of "representation" given in the said uncertified copy, a representation would be possible only if there was no appeal. This plea was not raised before the Tribunal, so as to obtain its decision thereon. In any case, nothing turn on it. The law did not permit the petitioner to file several representation and then seek exclusion of the period spent therein for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. It was filed in this case nearly two years after the final Departmental order (appellate) dated 16‑7‑1978. It was badly time‑barred and has rightly been dismissed.

4. There is no force in this petition and. the same is dismissed.

5. Petition dismissed.