' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his dismissal from service was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was serving as Constable in the C.I.A. Staff, Rawalpindi. On the allegation that he had released some bad characters after receiving illegal gratifications, the Superintendent of Police issued him a show cause. He submitted a written reply. After considering his reply and hearing him in person they said officer dismissed him from service. He preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General which was dismissed. He filed a second appeal before the Inspector-General. It was filed as incompetent. He then preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. It was dismissed as barred by time. He no seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. It is not disputed that if the date of order of the Deputy Inspector General is taken as the starting point for limitation, the petitioner's appeal before the Tribunal was out of time. The case of the petitioner is that under Rule 12(1 the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, the Inspector-General was competent to revise the orders of the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector-General. That being so, the learned Tribunal should have condone the delay after giving him credit for the time he had spent in pursuing his second appeal before the Inspector-General.
4. It is to be noticed that Rule 14, the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, provides for only one appeal against an order of dismiss or removal from service and the decision on the appeal is final. That being the position, the time for filing the appeal before the Tribunal started running against the petitioner as soon as the order of the Deputy Inspector-General was communicated, to him. The mere fact that the Inspector-General could revise the order of the appellate authority furnished no justification to the petitioner for waiting till his second appeal was disposed of. In the circumstances, the refusal of the learned Tribunal in not condoning the delay cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity. Leave to appeal is refused.