' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The-Petitioner, a Civil Servant, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Service Tribunal whereby his appeal was partly accepted and the penalty was reduced but he was not exonerated.
2. At the relevant time the Petitioner happened to be the President of the District Ministerial Services Welfare Association, Deputy Commissioner's Office, Faisalabad, where he was employed as a Clerk in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner. The Association felt aggrieved by certain orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of one Muhammad Rafiq Shah and other employees whereupon the Petitioner, as President was apprised to represent. He sent a telegram to the Commissioner to the following effect on 14-5-1979:- "Illegal dismissal of Mr. Rafique Shah Assistant of our office by Deputy Commissioner Faisalabad shocked this Association. Kindly reinstate the aggrieved person forthwith and direct Deputy Commissioner not to act in this manner in future."
3. The Deputy Commissioner who was the competent authority in the first place got a case registered against the Petitioner under section 29 of the Telegraph Act which was subsequently withdrawn and also charge-sheeted him on six counts and got an inquiry conducted and finally by an order dated 5-2-1980 dismissed him from service. He appealed to the Commissioner but failed and then to the Service Tribunal where punishment was altered to Censure and stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect.
4. Qazi Muhammad Saleem, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that as President of recognized Association the Petitioner was under a duty to act in the manner in which he did and in support of it he has referred to instructions to be found at page 633 of the 0 & M Manual of Instructions Volume II. It has also been contended that with the withdrawal of the criminal case under the Telegraph Act, the Petitioner could not be proceeded against departmentally and punished. According to the learned counsel, no case existed against the Petitioner.
5. We have noticed the charges levelled against the Petitioner and one of them was as hereunder:- - "That he gave the telegram without adopting the proper, channel or obtaining prior permission of his appointing authority and thus he acted in an insubordinate manner."
' The proper channel prescribed for such complaints, communications and representations is one which has been described at page 263 of the same 0 & M Manual referred to above, in para.
4. It has been supplemented by further instructions. The relevant portion of the latest instructions on the subject is reproduced hereunder:-- "Memorandum No, S.O.R.I. (S & G A D) II-1/74, ' dated Lahore, the 24th October, 1974.
' Subject: Recognition of the new Employees Associations--Instructions regarding the-- ' In supersession of all previous instructions on the subject, the Governor of the Punjab has been pleased to order that an Association formed by employees who are Civil Servants within the purview of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, in order to communicate their representations to Government for consideration, may be recognized by the concerned appointing authority of the Civil Servants forming the Association provided the members/applicants agree to, in writing, to abide by the following conditions:--
(iv) The Association shall confine its representations to matters of general interest to it only and shall not involve itself in individual cases of its members. Also, the office-bearers and members of the Association shall not participate in the activities of the Association at the cost of their official duties.
(4) "Each Association shall submit its representations to the concerned appointing authority and decisions on such representations shall also be communicated by the appointing authority which may if it cannot decide the matter itself, obtain orders of the next higher authority or through it 'refer the matter to Government for decision."
6. In view of these instructions the Petitioner was indeed guilty of misconduct and he could not be totally absolved of the responsibility in the matter. No ground is made out and leave to appeal is refused.