' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.---Appellant's dismissal order dated 3-3-'2003 was converted to compulsory retirement w,e,f, 3-3-2003 through order dated 6-11-2003. This major penalty was imposed for misconduct on the charge that as a Director of Education (EE) Multan, she made appointments on the basis of bogus LPC, fake service book and joining/relieving reports etc. In the name of Inter Markaz/Inter Tehsil/Inter District adjustments-by way of transfers. And that thus she violated the prescribed procedure for making appointments and caused financial. Loss with ulterior motives. Denying .Charges, she raised legal objections on various grounds. The inquiry was held wherein she duly cross-examined the witnesses and also produced her defence. Consequent upon the report of the Inquiry Officer, the competent authority dismissed the appellant from service. This penalty as above stated was converted by the appellate authority to compulsory retirement which was challenged through Tribunal Appeal No, 2757 of 2003 before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. The Appeal was dismissed through impugned judgment dated 21-2-2004 passed by the learned Chairman Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore.
2. Against the above judgment, leave was granted to the appellant in of the leave granting order passed in C.P.No, 2217-L of 2005. Both the appeals were ordered to be clubbed together any case, appeal arising out of C.P.No, 2217-L of 2005 was dismissed by this Court in 2008. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant Mr. Noor Muhammad Khan Chandia and Mr. Azeem Malik, learned Additional A.-G. Appearing for the respondents admitted that the proposition on which leave was granted on 6-12-2005 in C.P.No, 2217-L of 2005 was not involved in the present appeal and as such submissions were made on this appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Noor Muhammad Khan Chandia, learned Advocate Supreme Court repeated the arguments which had been dealt with and decided by the Tribunal in its detailed and well- reasoned judgment. His main argument was that the order of impositiOn of major penalty was passed in de novo inquiry which could not have been ordered by the appellate authority after the appellant had been exonerated in the earlier inquiry. But he was unable to show to us that the appellant had been duly exonerated in the earlier inquiry and that the competent authority under' the law was debarred from holding the de novo inquiry. It was also contended that from the inquiry proceedings only allegation of negligence could be proved against the appellant and major penalty could not have been imposed for the charge of negligence. Further that the charge as levelled against the appellant for appointing persons on forged documents was even otherwise not proved.
3. In the contrary arguments, Mr. Azeem Malik, learned Additional A.-G. Referred to Rule 2(d) of the Punjab Civil Servants A (E&D) Rules, 1975 and contended that the appellant's case duly fell in the definition of "misconduct".
4. We agree with the contentions of the learned Additional Advocate-General that making appointments on the basis of fake and forged documents by a senior officer of the department of the Elementary Education are acts prejudicial to the good order and discipline and acts, unbecoming of an officer. The evidence was thoroughly and duly appreciated/analyzed by the Inquiry Officer as well as the learned Tribunal. This Court cannot go into a third exercise-of reevaluation the Evidence in the absence of gross non-consideration of the same. We are of the opinion that the evidence as recorded by the Inquiry Officer was properly examined and thoroughly/analyzed in detail by the inquiry officer himself and by the Tribunal as well. No question of law of public importance arises to be determined by this Court.
5. In view thereof, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to the costs.