' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 24-9-1995 (8-10-1995) whereby service appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the order of departmental authority imposing penalty of 'censure' on the petitioner was maintained.
' The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 10-9-1991 and as many as 10 charges were levelled against him. Out of 10 charges levelled against him the inquiry Officer found only charge No,8 as having been established against him, which was to the following effect:-- "You were responsible for creating a situation of law and order and indiscipline on 17-6-1991 as a consequence of your continuous misbehaviour with staff and trainees and managed the arrest of M/s Rana Muhammad Saleem and Abdul Rahi, Naib Farash, Trade Training Centre by police. The trainees of Trade Training Centre and the staff (BPS-1-4) of Trade Training Centre, Ch. Rehmat Ali Community Centre and Aabpara Community Centre assembled on 17-6-1991 in front of the Director General's office in protest to your misbehaviour and the arrest of the said officials managed by you. Not only this, the Pakistan Grades 1-11 Employees Association threatened through Haji Meharban Khan, President and Sufi Ahmed Din, General Secretary to take the matter to higher authorities and the Court. Due to threatening law and order situation, the Trade Training Centre had been closed down from 25-6-1991 to 30-6-1991."
' The contention of the petitioner is that he was given personal hearing in respect of charge No,8 which was found against him by the Enquiry Officer and the then Establishment Secretary after hearing him dropped the said charge. In support of his contention the petitioner has produced letter dated 10-10-1993 which shows that the then Secretary General, Cabinet Secretariat Establishment Division, Mr. U.A.G. Isani had issued a release certificate stating that the petitioner, who has applied for the post of Senior Programme Officer under UNEP in Paris, will be spared if selected. The petitioner also relied on another letter dated 28-8-1994 written by Section Officer (Adorn.) Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division, to Section Officer (T.III) Establishment Division, Islamabad, in which it is stated that the competent authority has nominated the petitioner for the course at the I.M.F. Institute, Washington, D.C. In the United States of America for 1995 and documents in this regard were forwarded to the agencies. The copy of application form which was forwarded alongwith above letter contained the following certificate from the Joint Secretary of the Establishment Division:-- "Certified that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the nominee.
' Certified that no extension will be sought in that proposed training programme of the nominee.
' Certified that A.C.R. Gradings of the nominee for the last three years are as under:--
1. 1993 Good
2. 1992 Good
3. 1991 Good"
On the basis of above documents petitioner contended that charge No,8 having been once dropped by the then Establishment Secretary, a fresh probe on the basis of the same charge could not be started by the new incumbent to the post of Secretary, Establishment Division. The petitioner also contended that none of the witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer spoke a word in support of charge No,8 and as such charge No,8 could not be said to have been proved against the petitioner. The contentions raised by the petitioner require examination and we grant leave to appeal to consider the same.