SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Service Tribunal by its judgment dated 19-6-1990.
2. The petitioner was proceeded against on certain charges which related to his investment of money in property and insurance policy without the permission of the Department and without disclosing the same in the Annual Statement of Assets. The plea of the petitioner in defence was that he had not acquired the properties from his own resources, that he was a mere Benamidar and being not the owner, was not obliged to seek permission or to declare it as his own property.
The Department held an enquiry and punished him with dismissal from service. He challenged the same before the Service Tribunal but failed.
3. A number of grounds have been taken up in the Memorandum of Petition for leave to appeal with regard to the improper conduct of the enquiry, not making available the record for proper defence and the bias of the enquiry officer. As regards the merits of the case, the petitioner advanced the same plea which was taken note of by the departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and agree with the conclusion drawn by the Federal Service Tribunal as hereunder:- "Whatever assets existed in the appellant's name were expected to be mentioned in the declaration of assets. If the appellant was "Benamidar", it was all the more necessary that he should have not only mentioned it but should have particularly added the explanatory facts. The mere fact that the appellant chose not to disclose this asset in the declaration of assets, clearly speaks for itself. For these reasons the Enquiry Officer's finding that the appellant was guilty of misconduct is also upheld.
(7) As in the case of the Sea Breeze flat, it is not denied by the appellant that he purchased Life Insurance Policy of Rs.50,000 for which the annual premium was Rs.4,600. The appellant's explanation that a few months later he surrendered the policy for its cash value would not in any way advance his case. He admittedly did not disclose its purchase in the Statement of Assets and was, therefore, rightly held guilty of misconduct on this account also."
5. Factually, the learned counsel cannot explain his omission to declare these assets and also the explanation given by him is wholly unsatisfactory. The authorities were justified in coming to the conclusion to which they did.
6. No question of law of public importance arises in the case to justify leave to appeal which is hereby refused.