SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 17-9-1987 whereby his appeal was dismissed ex parte.
2. The Service Tribunal heard the appeal ex parte because in the first place notice for the date of hearing had issued to the petitioner as well as his counsel but on the date fixed none appeared.
The case was then taken up ex parte on a subsequent date and decided. The claim made by the petitioner in this Court and not before the Tribunal was that neither he, nor his counsel, have received the notice on time and the absence was not deliberate or such as could have justified ex parte hearing.
3. We have endeavoured our best to ascertain from the Tribunal and have not been able to get a report conclusive on the point that the petitioner was served on time. However; the date of the despatch of the notice which is fully established from the record allowed sufficient time to the petitioner to be served and to appear. It is not for this Court to undertake an enquiry into the propriety of service undertaken before any Tribunal unless that question had been raised and attended to by that Tribunal itself. Keeping in view the normal state of affairs, the notice to the petitioner and to his counsel, as was presumed by the Tribunal, would have to be sustained in these proceedings there being nothing conclusive otherwise.
4. On merits we find that the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact after examining the record and similar proceedings against his other associates. The following conclusions recorded are positive and adverse to him:-- "(i) There is an overwhelming evidence to prove the charge against him as discussed above.
Suffice it is to say here that the moment he made statement to the effect that he posted Muhammad Ashraf and Ghulam Muhammad after verification of the genuineness of their appointment letters. He proceeded to accept the whole responsibility. I have reproduced this whole answer made by the appellant Rana Rashid Ahmad. It means that whatever was done, was done by Rana Rashid Ahmad.
(ii) Rana Rashid Ahmad is the principal accused, who has forged and fabricated the appointment letters and issued orders for relaxation of age. The statement of the accused Rana Rashid Ahmad to the effect that he verified the appointment letters is sufficient to burden with the '"responsibility and holding him guilty."
5. No case for leave to appeal is made out on these findings and the same is hereby refused.