' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--L Muhammad Yaqoob, former Sub-Inspector of Police, Sahiwal, on charges of gross negligence and misconduct, was proceeded against under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Superintendent of Police Sahiwal vide order, dated 11-12-2002 imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement which was upheld in appeal by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan on 4-6-2003. His appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal was dismissed on 2-9-2003 and hence the present petition seeking leave to appeal.
2. The petitioner pleaded in response to the bar of limitation that after rejection of his appeal on 4- 6-2003 he had filed a revision before the authority under rule 12 of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rule, 1975, which also was rejected on 9-7-2003. That he received the copy thereof on 6- 8-2003 and thereafter his resort to the Tribunal on 21-8-2003 was within time.
3. The matter is to be dealt with in accordance with the aforesaid Ordinance, 2000. Under section 11 thereof, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force shall be considered not to have any effect. Section 9 deals with representation and review against the order passed by the Departmental Authority. It provides a right of one representation or review, as the case may be, but no second revision is at all permissible. The petitioner seeking shelter behind rule 12 of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline). Rules, 1975, cannot take the benefit thereof; firstly, on the ground that no such right is given in the special law having overriding effect and, secondly, that the revision contemplated by the Rules of 1975 no doubt empowers the Inspector-General of Police, etc. To revise the order of Departmental Authority in the circumstances given in the rule itself but it does not vest any right in the accused officer to file a revision as a matter of right. The finding of the learned Tribunal is perfectly in accord with the spirit of the Rules of 1975 as well as with the provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance; 2000.
4. The petitioner was supposed to have filed the appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, under section 10 of the Ordinance, within thirty days from the order passed under section 9 thereof. The order under section 9 was passed on 4-6-2003 and hence, even if the petitioner is given the relaxation from the application of proviso to section 10 of the Ordinance, he could have tiled appeal within thirty days from 4-6-2003. Instead he has filed appeal before the Tribunal on 21-8-2003 after the lapse of two months and seventeen days.
5. If viewed in the light of proviso to section 10 of the Ordinance, the appeal before the Tribunal was still barred by much larger a time. Departmental appeal was filed on 21-12-2002. According to the said proviso, the petitioner was to wait only for a period of sixty days whereafter he was a to file the appeal within thirty days. He had only a period of ninety days commencing from the filing of appeal on 21-12-2002 because the appellate authority had failed to decide his appeal within sixty days. Accordingly, he was in fact supposed to have filed the appeal before the Tribunal on 21-3- 2003, which instead was filed on 21-8-2003. In reality, the real delay is of five months.
6. The Tribunal rightly refused to condone the delay in the circumstances as no valid arguments were advanced in this behalf. We decline to show indulgence. There being no merit in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.