SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.--The petitioner, formerly a Forest Guard, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 15-1-1979 whereby his appeal against dismissal from service was dismissed.
2. The petitioner, a Forest Guard Incharge of Kheriot Beat in Pail Range in Shahpur Forest Division, Jauharabad, was proceeded against for flagrant breach of discipline. On a report made by Range Officer, Pail, a departmental inquiry was held in which the petitioner did not participate. He was found guilty on the charges levelled against him and dismissed from service. His appeal to the Conservator of Forests also failed. He approached the Service Tribunal after the abatement of his constitutional petition under section 8 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974. He alleged mala fides of fact against the Range Officer who had made the report on which the inquiry was started and the D. F. O., Shahpur Forest Division who passed the order of dismissal. The Tribunal itself examined three witnesses and on being satisfied that the inquiries had been held properly and that the petitioner was at fault in the appearing before the inquiry officer, in not showing cause before the D. F. O. And in fabricating documents to show his illness at the relevant time maintained the order of dismissal and dismissed his appeal. Hence this petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that serious allegations were made against the petitioner and he was made to face a departmental inquiry but the manner in which it was conducted showed that the petitioner had received no notice of the adjourned date of hearing and had been denied the legal right of meeting the charges, of facing the inquiry and of showing cause against the proposed punishment. He was kept in the dark after 10-5-1971 with regard to the proceedings in the inquiry and at the time when he received the show-cause notice he was unable to attend being seriously ill.
3. The Service Tribunal in this case had taken recourse to recording of evidence with a view to resolve controverted questions of fact. In the first instance they noted that for securing the attendance of the petitioner for the purposes of the departmental inquiry repeated efforts were made and finally the notice had to be published in Press in three Dailies Musawat, Imroze of Lahore and Wafaq of Sargodha for 10-5-1971. On that date the inquiry officer in view of his official engagement elsewhere could not take up the inquiry and had left information with the Range Clerk to keep every one attending the inquiry bound down for the next date i. e. 11-5-1971. The petitioner claimed that in spite of illness he was taken on a cot for appear--ance before the inquiry officer and was not told at all of the adjourned date of hearing. With regard to this plea of the petitioner the Tribunal recorded the finding in the following words :- "We are not impressed by his assertion that he was carried in a state of ill-health on a cot by his relatives to the Range Office for an enquiry and that nobody was present in the office till 2 p. m..........
In our opinion the appellant either did not attend the inquiry on 10-5-1971 or purposely evaded notice for the postponement of enquiry to the next date and made use of this situation to create a plea of lack of notice for enquiry for 11-5-1971."
5. The second ground advanced by the petitioner with regard to his inability to appear at the inquiry or in response to the show-cause notice also received proper attention of the Tribunal and the following finding was recorded with respect to it :- "The appellant has employed the hackneyed manoeuvre of changing his abode and sending medical certificates from different stations one after the other. Firstly, he sent medical certificate from the A. M. O., Gunjial and when directed to appear before the M. S. Sargodha, he next showed up at Rawalpindi from where he sent the next medical certificate thus creating a plea of non- receipt of letter of the D. F. O. Similarly after Rawalpindi, he sent the next Medical certificate from Kolu Tarar and has the pleas of non-receipt of the D. F. O's. Letter directing him to appear before the Director, Health Services. He was on notice to appear before the D. F. O. For personal hearing on 27-5-1971 and this time his medical certificate of illness and admission in hospital at Kolu Tarar from 26th to 28th May 1971 was remarkably timed to tide over the crucial date of 27-5-1971. As he failed to appear before the M. S., Sargodha and later before the Director Health Services; Lahore as directed by the D. F. O. We are not inclined to place reliance on the medical certificates obtained by him from lower authorities from here and there."
6. Except for assailing these two findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal the learned counsel for the petitioner has no other ground to urge. We find that the findings recorded are such as could be recorded on the material before the Tribunal. They are not liable to interference by this Court in exercise of the powers of appeal conferred on it under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.