SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 4-10-1983 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner from an order imposing a major penalty upon him.
2. The petitioner was serving as Foodgrain Inspector in the Food Directorate of the Provincial Government. There were allegations against him that he had purchased sub-standard and moth- eaten wheat and that he had procured the wheat through the commission agent$ instead of directly from the growers. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The requirement of formal inquiry was dispensed with and he was given a show-cause notice why a major penalty should not be imposed upon him. The petitioner submitted his reply. The authorised officer and the Deputy Director gave him personal hearing. By an order dated 24-9-1981 the Deputy Director found the charges proved and directed that he be reduced to next lower grade and posted as Foodgrain Supervisor. He further directed that he should not be considered for re- promotion till he had obtained four good annual reports. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director. By an order dated 3-3-1983 the Director upheld the findings of the Deputy Director with regard to the charges levelled against him as well as the punishment of reduction in rank but directed that "his case of promotion may be placed before the promotion committee for consideration on merit, provided he is ripe for promotion on the basis of his seniority position" .
Being dissatisfied with the order of Director the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal with the observation that he had already been leniently treated by the department. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal for this Court.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that as in his case no regular inquiry was held the imposition of major penalty upon him was illegal. We find little merit in this contention. It is to be noticed that under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, the authorised officer was competent to dispense with a regular inquiry. In this particular case, the proof against the petitioner was entirely of a documentary nature. It may also be mentioned that in his appeal before the Director he had made no grievance of the fact that no regular inquiry was held in his case or that he had been in any manner prejudiced in his defence in the absence of a regular inquiry. Similarly in his reply to the show-cause notice he did not ask for a regular inquiry.
No substantial question of law of public importance arises in this petition. It is hereby dismissed.