' Appellant Ghazanfar Ali, Warder No. 8097 of Central Jail Lahore was retired from service compulsorily vide order dated 18.12.2013 passed by Superintendent Central Jail, Lahore after proceeding him under PEEDA Act, 2006 on account of misconduct. His appeal preferred before DIG Prisons, Lahore Region Lahore was partly allowed reinstating the appellant into service while converting above said penalty into forfeiture of previous service for three years vide order dated 25.07.2014. Consequent to appellant preferred revision petition to IG Prisons, Punjab, which was also partly allowed and the penalty was further reduced into withholding of three increments for a period of three years. Thereafter, the appellant instead of filing appeal before this Tribunal again filed another revision petition to the Secretary Home Department, which was found not maintainable and accordingly appellant was informed vide order dated 19.05.2015. Now, instant service appeal is filed by the appellant on 16.06.2015 after about 04 months of the issuance of final order dated 13.02.2015. According to him he filed another revision petition before the Secretary Home Department, which was rejected on 19.05.2015 and as s, .Ch this appeal is not time barred.
2. Conversely learned District Attorney while categorically rejecting the stance of appellant prayed for dismissal of the appeal as he remained indolent and did not file the service appeal within statutory period prescribed in Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974.
3. After carefully going through the lecord available before this Tribunal, it is no more controversial that his revision petition under PEEDA Act, 2006 was decided on 13.02.2015 and he did not opt to file service appeal within statutory period and preferred another revision petition to the Secretary Home Department without any statutory provision. This factor leads this Tribunal towards conclusion that a person who opted a wrong forum at his own choice and did not avail the remedy provided to him within the period prescribed, is not legally competent to file an appeal before this Tribunal after such a long time Law cannot favour an indolent person.
4. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.