KHALID HUSSAIN vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its
The petitioner, a Line Superintendent of the Water and Power Development Authority, challenged an order imposing a penalty and withholding his increment through a departmental appeal and subsequently before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine as time-barred, noting an unexplained delay of over two and a half years in filing the departmental appeal, and rejected the petitioner's excuse that relevant documents were trapped in a flood-affected native village. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the explanation tendered by the petitioner was inherently unbelievable and insufficient to justify the prolonged delay. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the appeal was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation and refusing to grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the principle that unexplained and protracted delays in pursuing administrative and legal remedies cannot be condoned.
- Whether an inordinate delay of over two and a half years in filing a departmental appeal can be condoned on the ground that necessary documents were located in a flood-affected area?
- Is the Federal Service Tribunal justified in dismissing an appeal in limine when the appellant fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for delay?
ORDER
' UHAMMAD ILYAS, J.---The petitioner, Khalid Hussain, a Line Superintendent of the Water and Power Development 'Authority, faced disciplinary action with the result that he was directed to pay Rs,42,000 as penalty and his increment for one year was also withheld without cumulative effect.
Order in this regard was passed on 21-10-1991. He filed departmental appeal on 17-3-1994 but without success. Then, after ninety days, he preferred an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal on 24-7-1994.
2. The learned Service Tribunal found that the appeal was time-barred. Only explanation given by the petitioner while seeking coadunation of delay was that the documents to be filed by him with the appeal were in his native village in the flood area and, therefore, he was late in filing the appeal.
This explanation did not find favor with the learned Service Tribunal. His appeal was, therefore, dismissed by the learned Tribunal in liming stating that satisfactory explanation for coadunation of delay of more than 2-1/2 years in filing departmental appeal had not been furnished. The petitioner seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment of the learned Tribunal.
3. It was not denied by the petitioner that he was guilty of delay in claiming relief. We feel that the learned Tribunal was right in not accepting the explanation given by him. It is not possible to believe that he could not go to his village for about 2-1/2 years. Even if it had remained under flood for sometime, normally, the flood water takes one or two months to recede. Be that as it may, the petitioner could certainly reach his village within a couple of months by making a little bit of effort, if it was needed in the circumstances of the case. In our opinion, the learned Tribunal was right in rejecting his appeal on the ground of limitation and, therefore, it is not a fit case for grant of leave against the judgment of the learned Tribunal
4. Resultantly, this petition fails. It is, accordingly, dismissed.