' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Service Tribunal whereby her service appeal was dismissed as time- barred.
2. The petitioner, who was found absent from duty did not turn up to answer the charges and her absence was found to be wilful w,e,f. 28-4-1985. Her services were terminated vide order, dated 30- 5-1985. She appealed against this order and her appeal was dismissed on 3-6-1986. She filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 2-9-1986 which was held to be time barred. The only explanation given by the petitioner for filing the appeal before the Service Tribunal so late was that she was not informed of the appellate's order, dated 3-6-1986 and as soon as she got to know of it, she filed the appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal has found her appeal to be time-barred and found no sufficient reasons for condoning the delay. The factor which weighed with the Tribunal has been expressed in the following words:- "The appeal is likely to fail on one ground of limitation because the order was communicated to the appellant vide endst: dated 3-6-1986 and the same was sent at the address cited by her in the memo. Of appeal before the respondent No,2 while. This appeal was filed by her on 2nd September 1986. The appellant has appended an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was alleged that the appellant has not been supplied with authenticated copy, therefore, the appeal is within time. The application is being made to be on the safe side. The appeal was ready on 1st September, 1986 as is clear from the date at the foot of the memo. Of the appeal, as well as the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and the affidavit attached with the same, yet the same was filed in the Tribunal on 2nd September, 1986. There is no explanation for this delay. The story of applying for attested copy is, also falsified by the record as the appellant has placed on record only a photo copy."
3. We find that no legal infirmity exists in the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal. No case is made out for leave to appeal which is refused.