1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-The petitioner, a civil servant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, dated 8-1-1984 whereby his appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal and he was not allowed full pay for the period of his suspension on the ground that his acquittal was not honourable.
2. The petitioner was subjected to an Anti-Corruption raid by a Magistrate. The tainted money was recovered from him. He had an explanation for it. He was convicted by the trial Court but acquitted on appeal inter alia on the ground that the conversation was not heard and the complainant's statement by itself was not sufficient. The competent authority considered that the acquittal was not honourable, did not allow him the full pay for the period he remained suspended and absent from duty. The Tribunal examined the facts of the case and came to the conclusion that it was not an honourable acquittal and the refusal of full pay for the period he remained absent from duty, was justified.
3. ' Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not referred to any rule of the WAPDA which may come to his rescue but relied on the Fundamental Rule 54 and C.S.R.
4. 7.3. These being general rules could be invoked. His contention is that it was a case of clear acquittal entitling the petitioner to full pay for the period of his absence from duty.
5. The Tribunal has examined at length the nature of the evidence produced in the case and the reasons for which the acquittal was recorded. It justifies the formation of opinion by the Tribunal on the subject and we do not think that the appraisal of the material by the Tribunal raises any such question of law which may require further examination in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
6. Leave to appeal is therefore, refused.