1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, a civil servant, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 21st of November, 1984 whereby his appeal against the adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report for the period 9-5-1982 to 26-10-1982 was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was serving as an Assistant Engineer in the Building Research Station, Lahore; when adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report for the period indicated were communicated to him. He represented against it and sought its expunction. He failed. He thereupon, appealed to the Punjab Service Tribunal. His case was that on the very allegations which formed the basis of this report against him proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules had also been initiated and resulted in the minor punishment which was imposed on him.
3. However, on appeal he was exonerated. The adverse remarks could not, therefore, be allowed to remain on his service record.
4. The Tribunal looked into the matter and recorded the following finding of fact:- "To adjudicate the issue in right earnest and fair-play, this Tribunal has been persuing the comments of the Reporting Officer offered on the representation against the adverse remarks of a civil servant to find out whether the Reporting Officer has justified the same or otherwise. A reference is invited to the report of the Reporting Officer, Ch. Ali Muhammad, Senior Research Officer who has submitted detailed comments on the representation of the appellant regarding expunction of these adverse remarks to the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communications and Works Department vide his letter No. P.F./1585, dated 6-8-1983. The Reporting Officer has fully justified each and every remark giving the specific instances regarding appellant's work and conduct. We have perused these remarks very carefully and are in full agreement with these comments of the Reporting Officer".
5. As regards the ground taken up in appeal before it, the Service Tribunal held that:- "the appellant was not exonerated from the allegations but his appeal was accepted by the authority on technical grounds.
6. Consequently, the appellant cannot derive any benefits of that decision of the Department in this case."
7. We find that a finding of fact has been recorded by the Service Tribunal which is borne out from the record. There is no question of law of public importance involved and leave to appeal is refused.