' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, a dismissed Patwari, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 26-3-1986 by which his appeal too was dismissed.
2. The petitioner within months of his taking up appointment as Patwari was suspended, charge- sheeted and dismissed. The allegation against him was that he made interpolations in the Revenue Record and supplied incorrect copies of it and this was done deliberately and dishonestly.
The numerous other pending enquiries were also taken note of for deciding upon the penalty of dismissal.
3. Mr. A.H. Najafi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it remained unproved that the petitioner made the alterations in the entries in Revenue Record. Further, according to the learned counsel the pending enquiries should not have been referred to at all or made the basis for taking action against the petitioner.
4. As regards the first contention the Service Tribunal recorded the following finding:-- "The record of this case has been produced before this Tribunal today and has been examined carefully. The examination of the record clearly reveals that word 'Imam Bakhsh' stands added and same is in the hands of the appellant without any shadow of doubt, as this Tribunal has compared his other handwriting with the said interpolation. In view of the above findings of fact by the Tribunal which further confirms the concurrent findings on this issue made by the learned Assistant Commissioner and the learned Commissioner, the charge of interpolation in Khasra Girdawari in the hands of the appellant stands fully proved."
This finding of fact is not open to challenge in petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
5. As regards the second ground, after recording a finding of guilty, there is nothing wrong in reviewing the nature or quality of service rendered by the employee in the past with a view to determine the specific penalty that can be suitably imposed on him. The objection could have a plausible basis if such inchoate charges had been referred to or made basis of finding with regard to altogether different charges.
6. No ground is made out for leave to appeal which is refused.