' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The Petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 12-11-1986 whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2. The Petitioner was proceeded against departmentally under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and the two charges which require mention time and again are that he allowed unsatisfactory work to be done by the Contractor and approved it for payment and secondly he allowed a lead of 5 miles when in fact under the Contract a lead of 3 miles was permissible. After departmental inquiry, increment of one year without future affect was stopped. Getting no relief within the Department, the Petitioner approached the Service Tribunal and failed there also.
3. Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the dispute with regard to both these questions had gone to the Arbitrator whose award clearly justified the position taken by the Petitioner as five miles lead was allowed to the Contractor as of necessity and the unsatisfactory work was got redone by the same Contractor. According to the learned counsel, the Petitioner was not liable to suffer any penalty.
4. The Arbitrator's award and the proceedings relating thereto in the Court have no direct bearing upon the performance of the Petitioner or his handling of the execution of the work in terms of the Contract. If the contract provided three miles lead, the Petitioner could not without the permission of the competent authority, increase it to five miles. Subsequent rectification of the defective work also does not protect the Petitioner in the matter of departmental inquiry. The Petition has no merit and leave to appeal is refused.