1. ' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28-5- 2002, passed by learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of Khalid Siddique (respondent) has been accepted and the order dated 21-4-2002, whereby minor penalty of stoppage of two annual increments was imposed 'on the petitioner has been set aside.
2. Heard, Mr. Muhammad Riaz Lone, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner at length who could not put forth any plausible justification for condonation of 'delay of 34 days. The prime contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court that certified copy could not be obtained in time being devoid of merit cannot be considered. Besides what has been stated hereinabove the accusation against the respondent that he had used objectionable and unethical language in the official correspondence could not be substantiated by the department by leading any cogent and concrete evidence which aspect of the matter has been dilated upon in a comprehensive manner and in accordance with law by learned Service Tribunal in the judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-- "4. I have considered the contentions of the parties and also perused contents of the disputed letter dated 22-4-2000 and 4-5-2000. These letters are addressed to the Director E&T, Lahore who is an officer one step senior in rank to the appellant. Letters contain a reference to some taxation and also some proposals for elimination of corruption in registration on forged documents. I do not find anything unethical or objectionable in these letters. In the letter dated 4-5-2000 the appellant was constrained to write, the following remarks: "It is evident that such type of slanderous allegations which were levelled just to compel the undersigned to join hands with my colleagues in promotion of corruption, do not commensurate with the job requirements entrusted to you. It is hoped that in future you will be afraid of the Almighty God while sitting in the office chair as we are leaving in this world for a short while and we are answerable regarding our so called noble acts".
2. ' Perhaps it was these remarks with religious tinge which outraged the senior departmental officers resulting in the imposition of penalty on the appellant. One can consider the remarks a little bold and blunt but not unethical or objectionable from any angle or any sense of any moral principles.
3. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, the appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside."
4. The conclusion as arrived at by learned Service Tribunal as reproduced hereinbelow being well based hardly warrants any interference. No question of law of public importance is involved in the matter. The petition being meritless and barred by time is dismissed and leave refused.