1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---Thc petitioner was a Meter-reader in the Shandara Sub-Division of the Water and Power Development Authority. There were allegations against him that he had failed to furnish basic data, had accumulated reading units and supplied wrong reading. On 23-1-1982 the competent authority (Executive Engineer) served him with a show cause notice why a major penalty be not imposed upon him. The petitioner submitted his reply. He was given an opportunity to appear in person before the competent authority but it is not clear from the record whether he availed it or not. However, that may be, the competent authority did not find his explanation satisfactory and by an order dated 15-2-1982 dismissed him from service. The petitioner approached the Labour Courts for relief and was successful but the High Court in writ jurisdiction quashed those orders. He then filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal dismissed it. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. ' The main grievance of the petitioner before us is that no formal inquiry was held by the competent authority before dismissing him from service. It is to be noticed that under Rule 5(iv) Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 the decision whether a formal inquiry should or should not be held lies with the competent authority. In this case the charges were based entirely upon the official record. It cannot be, therefore, said that in deciding not to hold a formal inquiry the competent authority acted arbitrarily.
3. ' As regard merits, the learned Tribunal examined the record and held that the charges against the petitioner were fully substantiated. We are unable to find any error of law in the view taken by the learned Tribunal.