SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-The petitioners seek leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore dated 7-4-1982.
2. The respondent was a Head Constable in the Punjab Reserve Police. While on guard duty at the Assembly Hall, Lahore on 7-3-1979 he was found wearing headgear which was not a part of his uniform and when checked by his superiors and questioned about it he allegedly used abusive language. Proceedings were initiated against him under the Disciplinary Rules and after affording him personal hearing be was dismissed from service by an order dated 11-5-1979. His departmental appeal and revision were rejected. He appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not interfere with the finding of fact with regard to the misconduct of the respondent but took a lenient view of it on the facts of the case and substituted the punishment of dismissal with censure and stoppage of three annual increments, and for the period of absence after termination of his service he was treated to be or. Leave and not entitled to any salary or allowances. The petitioners are the departmental superiors of the respondent and contest the authority of the Tribunal to interfere with the punishment awarded to a civil servant as a measure of punishment arising out of enforcement of discipline in the police force.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, as the respondent belonged to a disciplined force where strict conformity with rules and regulations and due regard for the command and respect of the superiors is enjoined, any laxity or leniency is liable to throw the entire police force into disarray.
4. So far as the powers of the Service Tribunal hearing an appeal under section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act is concerned, it has been the subject-matter of decision in more than one case in this Court. For example, in the case of Yiamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another (PLD1980SC22), it was held that: "It goes without saying that it lies within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and, indeed, it is its obligation, to decide all questions of law and fact sought to be raised by the appellant to challenge the order of his dismissal, including his contention that no evidence was heard in his. Presence, nor was he given any opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment. The appellant would be entitled not only to a full opportunity to present his case before the Tribunal but also to inspect all relevant records which might have been taken into considera--petition by the competent authority for the purpose of passing the impugned order. As we see the legal position, the Tribunal has wide powers under section 5 of the Act, as it may on appeal confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against."
It would appear that it was within the powers of the Tribunal to interfere in appropriate case with the punishments imposed by the departmental authorities in disciplinary proceedings. We do not find that the exercise o such a power as was possessed by the Tribunal raises in this case a question of law of public importance as is envisaged under Article 212 of the Constitution which alone could justify an appeal to this Court. Hence leave to appeal is refused.