' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner is a Sub-Inspector Police. On the allegation that he had been inefficient and negligent in investigating a theft case, the Superintendent of Police served him with a show-cause notice. He submitted a written statement. He also appeared in person before the Superintendent of Police to explain his position. The Superintendent of Po ice found his explanation unsatisfactory and directed that his increment be stopped for one year. He preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police which was dismissed. He then filed a second appeal before the Inspector-General which was filed on the ground that there was no provision in the Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules for a second appeal. He then preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. It was dismissed on the ground of limitation. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It is not disputed that after the dismissal of his appeal by the Deputy Inspector-General, the petitioner did not approach the Tribunal within the prescribed time. It is contended on his behalf that he should be given credit for the time he had spent in preferring the second appeal before the Inspector-General. There is no merit in this contention, for, under rule 14(2), the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, the order in the first appeal of the Deputy Inspector-General was final and no second appeal lay before the Inspector General. The learned Tribunal did not therefore commit any error in not excluding the time which the petitioner had spent in approaching the Inspector-General. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.