FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment dated 29.8.2002, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeal No. 2614/2001.
2. The petitioner was a Food-grains Supervisor. He was proceeded against along with other officials for the huge shortfall of wheat procured by them at their centre. A regular inquiry was held in which he was found guilty. Therefore, on the recommendations of the authorized Officer, the Deputy Director, Food, Bahawalpur Division, being the competent authority, passed an order dated 7.6.2000 whereby, the petitioner was dismissed from service along with recovery of the value of the shortfall of the wheat to be made from the petitioner and other delinquent officials in equal proportion. The petitioner filed departmental appeal, which was dismissed by the order dated 19.10.2001, passed by the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore. Therefore, he preferred Appeal No. 2614/2001, which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 29.8.2002, passed by the Tribunal. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the co-accused Muhammad Riaz had taken full responsibility for the entire shortage of the wheat stock, lt was further contended that a criminal case was also registered against the petitioner and others in which the petitioner had been acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction on 2.2.2002. Lt was lastly submitted that the charge against the petitioner was not proved by the Inquiry Officer.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also gone through the available record. We find that the Inquiry Officer, the Authorized Officer and the competent authority had satisfied themselves on the basis of record that the petitioner was guilty of the charge, lt was found that the petitioner had also given in writing on 13.7.1999. That there was a shortfall of the wheat stock and that he had prepared the bogus record for the fictitious despatches of 1770 bags of wheat We are ^ot supposed to hold a parallel inquiry in order to determine the guilt or otherwise afresh. Tb petition does not involve any substantial question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan so as tc interference by this Court.
5. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and appeal is refused accordingly.