' SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN JAFFERY, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 22-1-2008, passed by learned Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore, whereby his Service Appeal No,2981 of 2006 was dismissed on the point of limitation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the inquiry officer, appointed under section 5 of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, has not given proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; that detailed inquiry was not conducted in the matter; that the allegations against the petitioner having refuted by him in his explanation to show-cause notice, major penalty of compulsory retirement should not be imposed and that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is quite harsh. Therefore, leave to appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be set aside.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and gone through the entire material available on record. The petitioner was compulsorily retired vide order dated 22/24- 8-2002. He filed representation/departmental appeal before the higher departmental authority which was rejected by Capital City Police Officer, Lahore. Then the petitioner filed another representation against the above said impugned order before the Provincial Police Officer, Punjab, Lahore which was disposed of vide order dated 24-12-2004. Consequently, he was dismissed from service under the provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. He preferred appeal before the learned Service Tribunal alongwith application for condonation of delay on the ground that he was pursuing his case before the department bonafidely and after rejection of his revision petition by respondent No,2, he again filed revision petition before respondent No,3 which was pending adjudication at the time of filing of appeal before the learned Service Tribunal. The ground urged by the petitioner that he belatedly received copy of the impugned order hardly constitutes a ground sufficient for condonation of delay as the delay of each day is to be explained as enunciated by this Court in a number of judgments. Revision petition filed by the petitioner was decided by I.G.P. On 24-12-2004 while the appeal before the learned Service Tribunal was filed on 29-11-2006 and it is obvious that the service appeal was A barred by time. Therefore, the learned Service Tribunal considered the evidence on merit as well as on the point of limitation, which was accordingly dismissed. We are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of learned Punjab Service Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of material available on record and no infirmity and illegality has been shown justifying interference by this Court. No substantial question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is involved.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in this petition which is dismissed. .