Hamid Ali Mirza, J.--Heard Learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the authority was not competent to impose major penalty, when the authorized officer did not recommend the same.
3. We do not find substance in the said contention considering that the authority is competent to differ with the proposed 'recommendation of authorised officer and could impose major penalty, which in his opinion is considered to be legal in view of the evidence on record upon the delinquent officer. It may be observed that after receiving the report dated 11.4.1989 of the authorised officer in respect of the petitioner the authority issued notice for personal hearing to the petitioner and after considering relevant documents and defence of the petitioner gave sound reasons for not agreeing with the authorised officer in his order dated 19.9.1993 against which appeal was also preferred before the Director Food which too was rejected. We are of the view that authority was quite competent in law to differ with regard to the authorised officer in the circumstances of the case as the authority has given just and sound reasons in his order for disagreeing with the authorised officer after considering the relevant documents and defence of the petitioner.
Reference may be made to (i) Mukhtar Ahmad Bhatti v. Director Food, Punjab and others (1992 SCMR 1864 at page 1869), (ii) Qazi Khalilur Rehman & others vs. Secretary, Ministry of Railways and others (1994 PLC (C.S.) 713), (iii) Sh. Abdul Waheed vs. The Chief Secretary, Punjab (1985 PLC (C.S.)
886). No other plea has been raised.
4. We find that no substantial question of law of public importance is involved, therefore leave to appeal is declined and the petition is dismissed.