AJMAL KHAN vs ISHTIAQ AHMED And 3 Other

ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 6-6-1994 dismissing the petitioner's appeal as the-barred.

2. Facts giving rise to this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was selected for appointment as Senior Auditor (B-11) in Military Accounts Department vide order dated 27-9-1990 by which order, he was cashed to report for duty to the Office of Dy. C.A.A.F. Lahore by 31-10-1990 failing which "this offer will stand automatically cancelled ...." Petitioner, it appears, did not report for duty in terms of the appointment letter and after about six months, made an appeal to the Military Accountant-General, Rawalpindi on 18-4-1991 seeking extension of joining the. It was stated in the appeal that the petitioner could not produce the documents mentioned in the appointment letter for the reason that he was to appear in an interview for the post of Probationer Accountant scheduled to be held on 20-11-1990 where he was required to produce the original documents. Be that as it may, the request made by the petitioner for extension of joining the was declined by the Military Accountant---General vide his letter dated 22-5-1991. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached Wafaqi Mohtasib with the representation dated 11-8-1993 and also filed writ petition No.955/93 in the Peshawar High Court on 19-3-1994 which he later withdrew on 12-4-1994 stating that he would move the Service Tribunal for necessary relief. He then filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal on 8-5-1994 and alongwith the appeal, moved an application for condonation of delay stating therein that he had been pursuing his remedy with the concerned department and then with Wafaqi Mohtasib and later in the High Court.

3. The Service Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Military Accountant- General on 18-4-1991 was itself the-barred but even thereafter, the petitioner chose a wrong forum and made a representation to the Wafaqi Mohtasib and that, to, after more than 2 years of the final order passed by the Military Accountant-General. Note was also taken of the fact that the petitioner filed writ petition which was dismissed as withdrawn on 12-4-1994. The learned Tribunal took the view that "the appellant after rejection of his appeal dated 18-4-1991 by the Military Accountant-General by order dated 22-5-1991 ought to have preferred appeal within thirty days before this Tribunal, which he failed to do, and made his appeal the-barred. His prosecuting remedy with the Wafaqi Mohtasib or before the Peshawar High Court after about more than 3 years of final order was at his risk and cost and the the spent there cannot be treated as bona fide."

Application for condonation of delay was accordingly rejected and the appeal of the petitioner dismissed as the-barred vide the impugned judgment.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has not controverted the factual position a forenoted. That being so, the learned Service Tribunal took the correct view of the matter in holding that the petitioner's appeal dated 18-4-1991 before the departmental authority was itself the-barred and that the petitioner's recourse to the remedies before the Wafaqi Mohtasib and the Peshawar High Court could not be said to be bona fide. Apart from this, petitioner furnished no explanation whatever for the period of more than to years which he allowed to elapse before he approached Wafaqi Mohtasib. Thus looked at from whatever angle, petitioner's appeal before the Service Tribunal was hopelessly the-barred and it has been rightly dismissed as such. Even on merits, petitioner has no case. He was expressly directed to report for duty by 31-10-1994 which he failed to do for no good reason. He could not, therefore, seek extension of the for joining the duty as of right.

In view of what has been said above, the impugned judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal is unexceptionable. This petition fails which is accordingly dismissed and the leave sought is refused.