1. MAZHARUL HAQ (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing. Orders) Ordinance, 1968, by Nazar Hussain against the Fauji Textile Mills, Jhelum, for his re-instatement and consequential benefits. The petitioner was dismissed from service under Standing Order 15(3)(a) for insub--ordination and disobedience to the superior authorities. The facts of the case are that the petitioner asked R. W. 1, Captain Abdur Rahman, Medical Officer, of the Mill to declare him fit. The doctor upon examination, found some conjection in his lungs and recommended the screening of his chest which was obtained by the petitioner, upon which he was advised X-Ray. On 6-9-1970, Nazar Hussain brought the Shtyiagram and the report. The doctor found there shadow marks and gave his report. The petitioner snatched the papers from the doctor including the report and declared that he would see to the doctor in the Court. The petitioner was chased by the doctor but could not catch him.
2. The matter was reported to the secretary of the Mill. An inquiry against him was held R. W. 2, Muhammad Abdullah, supported the version of the doctor. R. W. 3 Major Anwar Hussain, a member of the Court of inquiry, produced the inquiry proceedings, R. W. 3/A, He deposed that the petitioner was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses but he refused to avail of this opportunity and that the petitioner was allowed to produce his defence which he did not. During the inquiry, the petitioner also made a statement in which he had stated that the doctor had threatened him, had asked him to leave service but the petitioner replied that he was fit for service and as such took away the paper, which the petitioner had brought with him. From the statement of the petitioner made by him, before the enquiry, it is obvious that no previous ill-will or malice is attributed to the doctor, except that the doctor found him unfit which the doctor maintained even during the trial of this application. The peti--tioner has led no evidence in support of his plea that he did not misbehave with the doctor.
3. I have, no reason to doubt the statement of the witnesses relied upon by the respondent. It may, however, be mentioned that the petitioner who has a long service with the respondent has been dismissed by the Management because ho had snatched away .The papers from the Doctor. But since legally this Court is not entitled to go into the severity of punishment awarded by the Inquiry Officer, I would therefore, refrain from commenting upon the seventy of the action in this action.
4. This petition thus fails and is dismissed.