1. ' ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-Petitioner Dilbar Hussain, was serving as a Police Constable in the Sahiwal District, and tendered his resignation on the 20th of December, 1971, which was accepted by the Superintendent of Police on the same day. It seems that he had second thoughts, and, accordingly, sent telegrams to the Deputy Inspector General, Multan Range and to the Inspector-General, Punjab, alleging that he had been coerced into submitting his resignation by the Superintendent of Police who was ill-disposed towards him for various reasons. Later he preferred an appeal against the acceptance of his resignation, but this was rejected by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police on the 20th of March, 1974, and his representation was also rejected by the Inspector-General of Police on the 25th of October, 1976. Therearfer, he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which was dismissed on the 22nd of March, 1979. He now seeks leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution.
2. ' It is submitted by Mr. Abdul Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Tribunal has failed to apply its mind to the detailed facts submitted before it to establish mala fides on the part of the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal District ; that similarly the Tribunal has failed to, appreciate the fact that the Deputy Inspector-General had condemned the petitioner without giving him an opportunity of being heard; and he had decided the petitioner's appeal on incorrect data ; and that, in any case, there has been a misreading of material evidence by all the service authorities in refusing to appreciate the contention of the petitioner that his resignation was not voluntary.
3. Under Article 212 of the Constitution an appeal lies to the Supreme Court against an order of the Service Tribunal if a substantial question of law of public importance is involved ; but in the present case no such question has been raised. On the contrary, all the contentions and submissions made on behalf of the petitioner raise essentially one single question of fact, namely, whether the petitioner had resigned voluntarily or whether he was forced to do so by the Superintendent of Police for the reason that he or some members of his family were not well disposed towards the petitioner. We find that the Service Tribunal has examined all the relevant facts at considerable length before coming to the conclusion that apparently the petitioner had tendered his resignation to avoid disciplinary proceedings in several cases which were pending against him at the relevant time. We are not persuaded that the Service Tribunal has ignored any material evidence, or misread the same, in reaching its conclusions.
4. ' As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.