Key facts
- Court
- Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi
- Case no.
- Service Appeal No. 389 of 2025
- Bench
- Irfan Ahmad Meo Rajput (Member / Acting Chairman) and Shahid Abdul Salam Khan (Member); order written by Shahid Abdul Salam Khan
- Date of decision
- 17 November 2025
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed in limine as time-barred; condonation of delay refused.
- Counsel
- Ms. Sana Junjhi, advocate for the appellant
- We acted for
- The appellant (former police constable)
Personal details such as CNIC numbers, phone numbers, home addresses and FIR numbers are redacted in the PDF.
Background
The appellant joined the police as a constable in 2017 and was sent on a recruit training course. A show-cause notice dated 28.11.2017 alleged misconduct involving narcotics at the training centre. By order dated 26.12.2017 he was given a penalty of forfeiture of two years' service, and by order dated 15.03.2018 he was discharged. His departmental appeal was rejected on 07.03.2019.
He filed his service appeal on 18.10.2025, more than six and a half years after the appellate order, together with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay. He said the appellate order was never communicated to him, and that in December 2019 he met with a serious accident that left him unable to pursue the matter.
Issue before the Tribunal
The appeal was fixed for hearing on limitation: was the delay sufficiently explained to be condoned?
The Tribunal's reasoning
Non-communication. Under section 4(a) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, a civil servant may file a service appeal once 90 days have passed from filing a departmental appeal, even if no decision has been received. The claim that the appellate order was not communicated therefore did not help him.
The accident. The Tribunal found that sufficient medical proof had not been produced to support the version about the accident. Even taking that version at face value, it did not explain the period from 07.03.2019, when the appellate order was passed, to December 2019, when the accident is said to have happened. No explanation was given for that period.
The Tribunal therefore found no sufficient cause to condone the delay.
Outcome
The application for condonation was refused and the appeal was dismissed in limine as barred by limitation. The merits of the discharge were not examined.
Why it matters
A delay in a service appeal has to be explained for its whole length, and the explanation has to be supported by evidence such as medical records. Waiting for a departmental decision that never arrives is not a safe course: the law allows a service appeal after 90 days without one. Anyone who has filed a departmental appeal should keep track of these dates from the start.
Frequently asked questions
Facing a similar service matter?
Speak to our service law advocates. Call or WhatsApp +92 308 2254647 (Monday to Saturday, 11:00 am to 7:30 pm), or send an enquiry through our contact page.
This page is a plain-English summary of a reported decision, prepared from the judgment itself. It is general information, not legal advice, and every case depends on its own facts. The summary does not add to or interpret the judgment; please refer to the full text (PDF) for the court's exact words.