1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-These six petitions for leave, to appeal arise out of judgment dated 4-11-1976 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, whereby the petitioners' appeals against departmental orders of their dismissal from service, were dismissed.
2. The petitioners and others were serving in the Police in the Province of Baluchistan, when in 1972 a decision was taken, but what is stated in "higher level" involving the then President, the Governors and the Chief Secretaries of the Provinces, that they should be repatriated" in their respective Provinces to be absorbed in the regular respective Provincial Police Forces. The petitioners were deputed to perform temporary assignments pending the completion of records and formalities of their absorption. They were, however, impatient regarding their absorption in the regular Punjab Police Force. They placed demands in this behalf before the Inspector-General of Police through various means. They were apprehensive that their cases were being indefinitely delayed. In the meanwhile, the Inspector-General of Police, vide order dated 12-4-1973, required the petitioners and others to serve on deputation for six months in the then Federal Security Force. This duty by the petitioners was to be performed as member of Federal Security Force in Baluchistan. Their services were placed at the disposal of the said Force. The terms of deputa--tion were settled. The orders were also issued for relieving the persons who were on temporary assignment at different places. It is an accepted position that the petitioners and many others did not accept the orders regarding their deputation to the Federal Security Force. Whether it be termed as protest against or defiance of, the orders passed by the higher authorities, the persons concerned created a serious situation for the administration. The latter took several measures including action for misconduct.
3. Accordingly, the petitioners and many of their colleagues were dismissed from service with effect from 19th May, 1973. A writ petition challenging the transfer to the Federal Security Force on deputation and depart--mental action, was filed, but the same was dismissed. They were advised to approach the Departmental Authorities. Appeals were then filed before the D. I. G. Who re- instated a large number of persons. The remaining persons filed revision petitions before the Inspector-General of Police, who also re-instated 160 persons, but maintained the orders of dismissal of 17 only. A writ petition was again filed in the High Court but the same was declared as abated on 3rd December, 1974. Out of seventeen only six the present petitioners, filed appeals before the Service - Tribunal and the same having been dismissed, they -have sought leave to appeal.
4. Mr. S. M. Zamir Zaidi, counsel for petitioners (in C. P. S. L. As Nos. 78, 79 and 80) has contended ; that the order of dismissal was passed without issuing any show-cause noticethat a take inquiry, described by him as "wholesale" and "en bloc" was conducted on the loudspeaker, which did not satisfy the requirements of tire relevant rules, nor of natural justice ; that the right of personal hearing was not provided to the petitioners ; that some of the colleagues of the petitioners having been re-instated, they have been picked up without any distinguishing feature regarding their case-the finding that they were the ring-leaders, according to the learned counsel, were without any evidence ; that although the petitioners could not refuse to obey the order of their transfer on deputation to the Federal Security Force on the basis of any legal, protection, they could do so on the ground that the assurance regarding their absorption in the Punjab Police were not fulfilled ; and that the case of Karamat Hussain petitioner is distinguishable because he at all relevant times was serving at a station other than that where the defiance is said to have taken place.
5. Dr. Khalid Ranjha, learned counsel for the petitioners (in C. P. S. L. As. Nos. 132, 133 and 134) has, in addition to the arguments of Mr. Zaidi, contended that even if there was no justification for defying the order of transfer on deputation, the authorities concerned and the Tribunal did not notice a distinction between what they considered as "defiance" and what the petitioner intended namely "a mere protest". According to him, the petitioner having been given assurances for their absorption in the Punjab Police by the highest in the realm, it was not justified for the commandant of the camp where most of the concerned persons were stationed, to have ignored those assurances. He also emphasised that the assurances were fulfilled with regard to a large majority of persons, therefore, there was no reason why only seventeen persons should have been picked for a discriminatory treatment. He pointed out that even out of seventeen three more persons have been absorbed. He also argued that the Rules did not permit service of the show-cause notice by the commandant on loudspeaker. Lastly, according to him, of the D. I. G. Or the I: G. Could condone the conduct of the colleagues of the petitioners, their assumption that the petitioners were the ring-leaders, therefore, they were not entitled to any relief, was not based on any evidence.
6. According to the facts noticed and accepted by the Service Tribu--nal, the petitioners had refused to receive the show-cause notices. There was, therefore, no alternate left except to inform them about the contents of the notices on the loudspeakers. The fact that the petitioners had not: accepted their transfer on deputation for a limited period to the Federal Security Force, stands established. None of the learned counsel has been able to rely on any provision of law under which the conduct of the petitioners could be justified. If they were given the assurances regarding their absorption in the Punjab Police, their transfer for six months on deputation to the Federal Security Force was not in any way in contravention of these assurances. Even if it were so, the very fact that they belonged to a disciplined force ought to have impelled them to obey the orders and then to raise. In accordance with law before proper forum their plea for absorption. The record was. Before the Tribunal. It has bad jurisdiction to deal with the questions of law and merits both. The finding that the petitioners were ring-leaders has not been disturbed. I cannot be said that the assumption in this behalf made by the D.I.-G. And the I.-G. Who were aware of the entire case and the records were available before them was not justified. The findings in the behalf appear to be unexceptionable. We do not agree with Mr. Ranjha that the conduct of the petitioners, as is apparent from the impugned order, amounted to a "mere protest" although the same may also be not condonable in the force to which they belonged. The defiance was visible and in fact the petitioners tried to justify it at all levels. 1n these circumstances, even if some departure has been made with regard to the observance of the letter of any rule, on merits, we do not find it a fit case for grant o leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution which provides that such an appeal would be competent only if "the case involves a substantial question of law and public importance"
7. There is no such question involved in this case.
8. There is no force in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed.