Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, J.--Petitioner while serving as Sub Accountant was proceeded against in terms of the charge sheet as under:-- "(i) Three bills amounting to Rs, 14585/10, Rs, 2063/50 and Rs,14585/10 were passed by the DAO, Sialkot on 05.08.1998. These bills were neither scrolled, nor embossed with the special embossing sell by the DAO. However payments were got made by the accused official by affixing the special embossing seal of sub treasury officers, Pasrur.
(ii) A fictitious bill amounting to Rs; 185875/- was unauthorizedly scrolled by the accused official and the amount was drawn from Sub-Treasury, Daska on 13.06.2001."
2. The enquiry culminated in the award of major penalty of dismissal from service which penalty was converted into compulsory retirement. Leave was granted by this Court in terms of order dated 27.12.2010 which is as follows:-- "Inter alia contends that having held that it was merely negligence on the part of the petitioner and no regular inquiry was conducted by the department against others involved in the transaction, it was not open for the Tribunal to maintain the major penalty and merely convert the same into compulsory retirement.
Having heard petitioner's learned counsel at some length, leave is granted, inter alia to consider the issues raised. As it is a service matter, office is directed to fix the main appeal within six months."
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the evidence/ material collected during enquiry.
4. The foundational argument of appellant's learned counsel was that no regular enquiry was conducted; that the appellant was innocent; that he did not deposit the embezzled amount of Rs, 185875/- and it was one Ismail who deposited it; that in absence of regular enquiry, the major penalty could not have been awarded.
5. Having considered the submissions made, we find that neither in the grounds of appeal before the Service Tribunal nor before this Court, the appellant has disputed that he deposited the embezzled amount of Rs, 185875/- in government treasury through Haji Muhammad Ismail. The afore-referred admission proves the charge and in these circumstances, the findings rendered by the enquiry officer have not been found by us to be against the record. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the appellant regarding absence of regular enquiry is concerned, we find that in the face of the afore-referred admission and the documentary evidence on record, the regular enquiry was not called for in absence of any prejudice having been caused. No other question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution has been raised either. The appeal having no merit is accordingly dismissed.