' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Petitioner while posted as a clerk in Gujranwala Cantt. Post Office was charge-sheeted by the Senior Postmaster, Gujranwala on the following allegations:--
(1) Serious violation of the departmental rules.
(2) Unlawful interference in the Government work.
(3) Gross-misconduct.
(4) Enterance in the Government Office with gun.
(5) Spoiling discipline of Gujranwala MSO (Government Office).
(6) Indulging in unlawful business of Charas and Afyoon.
2. Precise charge against the petitioner was that on 5-8-1990, he entered Gujranwala M.S.O. With gun and asked the staff deliver to him Noshera P.O. Registered parcel No,70, addressed to him at his official address. He was told by the staff that the registered parcel in question could be delivered only by the office on destination i,e, Gujranwala Cantt. H.P.O. Petitioner then tried to snatch away the parcel in question at gun point. The staff present there overpowered him and snatched gun from him. The matter was reported to the police. The petitioner was arrested and the parcel when opened was found to contain Charas, Afyoon, three suits of clothes and one packet of Capri Bath Soap.
3. Petitioner in his reply to the charge-sheet denied all the allegations. Enquiry was conducted by Enquiry Officer who found charges Nos. 1 to 5 aforementioned as proved but gave no finding on charge No, 6 as the matter was sub judice in a Court of law.
4. After the receipt of the enquiry report, petitioner was issued a notice on 20-1-1992 to show cause as to why major penalty be not imposed on him. He refused to receive the notice whereafter he was dismissed from service vide order dated 8-3-1992. On departmental appeal, however, taking a lenient view of the matter, the penalty of "dismissal from service" was converted to that of "reduction by one step in his time scale of pay, for a period of two years, without future effect".
Petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal which was dismissed vide judgment dated 18-4-1993. The learned Tribunal held: "We find no legal infirmities in the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. He was served with a charge-sheet. The departmental inquiry was conducted in which he was found guilty of five charges out of six. The appellant fully participated in the inquiry, cross-examined the witnesses and exercised his right of defence by producing four witnesses. He was also issued a show-cause notice, which he refused to receive in order to delay the disciplinary proceedings. The departmental authority has already taken a lenient view of the matter and the penalty of appellant's dismissal from service has been modified and substituted by a lesser penalty of reduction by one step, in his time scale of pay, for a period of two years, without future effect, which is quite proper and justified under the circumstances of the case". Petitioner now seeks .Leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal.
5. We have heard the petitioner who has appeared in person. The only point argued by him is that the Postmaster-General was his appointing/competent Authority while the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and the charge-sheet was issued by the Senior Postmaster, Gujranwala, a Grade-16 officer who was not competent to do so. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against him were thus void ab initio. We find that this point was not raised by the petitioner before the Service Tribunal. In any case, the learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing for the respondent department has brought to our notice Notification dated 21-7-1982 whereunder, in the offices/circles/divisions/ units under the Pakistan Post Office Department, head of division/Unit (an officer in Grades-16, 17 and 18) has been designated as an appointing authority for Grades 5 to 7. It is pointed out by the learned Deputy Attorney-General and admitted by the petitioner that Senior Postmaster, Gujranwala, a Grade-16 officer was the head of G.P.O., Gujranwala and that Gujranwala Cantt. Post Office where the petitioner was working at the relevant time was under the G.P.O., Gujranwala. That being so, Senior Postmaster, Gujranwala was the appointing authority of the petitioner who admittedly was in Grade-7. The officer was, therefore, fully competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and to charge-sheet him. It has also been stated on our query that the petitioner was ultimately dismissed from service by Superintendent, Post Office, Gujranwala Division, a Grade-17 officer. We also find that the departmental appeal of the petitioner was heard and his penalty reduced by the Deputy Postmaster-General. Thus, from start to finish, the disciplinary proceedings did not suffer from any want of lawful authority. This petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.