' IRAHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 21-10-1997 in Appeal No,2/P of 1997.
2. Brief facts are that the petitioner on his retirement from Pakistan Air Force, was re-employed as Lecturer/Teacher in B-16, in the PAF Degree College, Peshawar vide appointment letter dated 21-10- 1981. According to terms and conditions of his service, he was initially appointed on probation for one year and on satisfactory completion of his probationary period, he was liable to be terminated at three months' notice or on payment of three months' pay in lieu thereof. The post held by him was upgraded to B-17 on 1-10-1994.
3. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice 1-1-1996 to explain as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him for his conduct unbecoming of the position and character expected of a P.A.F. School/college teacher. It was alleged in the show-cause notice on 31-8-1996, at about 07-10 hours, the son of the petitioner, Hamidur Rehman, was checked by Base Provost Personnel on duty at Degree College, for violation of traffic rules. The petitioner was present at the scene and instead of preventing his son from misbehavior with the Base Provost, he encouraged and supported his unlawful behaviour. It is further alleged that a letter of advice was also issued to the petitioner on 9-6-1994 by the then Principal to control the indisciplined attitude of his son but with no effect. The petitioner in his reply to the show-cause notice denied the charges. The reply was found unsatisfactory by the competent Authority. In consequence, he was terminated from service vide order dated 5-9-1996 passed by the departmental authority. The departmental appeal filed by him was not disposed of. The petitioner, therefore, filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 7-1-1997 for his reinstatement in service. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and perusing the material available on record, dismissed the appeal, inter alia, with the following observations: "The record shows that the appellant had been warned several times to mend himself and to control his sons but in our opinion he could not do so. As a teacher it was his duty to prove himself and his family members specially sons to be wise and respectable. He was a reemployed civilian personnel of a disciplined force, he should have maintained himself as a disciplined man which he failed to do so. In the circumstances stated above we have no alternate but to dismiss this appeal as having no merits. However, the appellant is entitled to get three months' salary in lieu of three months' notice under para. 8(a) of his terms and conditions of service and ordered accordingly."
4. Mr Muhammad Latif Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner could not be condemned resulting into termination from service on account of alleged misbehaviour of his son. The contention is devoid of any force. It is proved on record that the behaviour of the petitioner was unbecoming of a teacher. He is only failed to control the insolent behaviour of his son but rather encouraged his attitude. The previous service record of the petitioner also indicates that he was given a number of opportunities to improve his behaviour befitting of a teacher but he failed to do so. This is, therefore, not a case where the order of termination has been passed against the petitioner for the conduct of his son simpliciter. On the contrary, a finding has been recorded by the Tribunal, after proper appraisal of material available before it that the petitioner connived with his son at the time of occurrence on 31st August, 1996. We are not impressed by the plea taken by the petitioner that the order of termination passed against him was mala fide, in that, the son of the petitioner was mishandled by the concerned staff and that the Provost bore grudge against the petitioner, as reflected in paragraph 9 of the application, dated 3rd September, 1996 addressed by the petitioner to the Principal, P.A.F. Degree College, Peshawar wherein it was, inter alia, stated: "As regards a letter of advice which was issued to me on 9th June, 1994 by the then Principal, I would like to inform you that it was just the grudge of 1944 which I will prove at the time when it is needed and justice to be done to me
5. It is well-settled that the plea of mala fide is to be pleaded with particularity and merely upon vague allegations no roving inquiry could be held. Here, the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence in support of his bald allegations of mala fide.
6. Be that as it may, the petitioner, belonging to the teaching community of Pakistan Air Force College, ought to have obeyed the orders of his superiors in controlling the insoleni behaviour of his son. He not only defied the orders of his superiors but also connived with his son at the time of occurrence and such an act on his part was not pardonable, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner has not led any evidence to challenge the allegations levelled against him by the respondents before the Tribunal. The Tribunal alone being an appropriate forum in resolving a factual and legal controversy, arising in a service matter, this Court does not enter into realm of facts. Clearly, no flaw or legal infirmity exists in the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in dismissing his appeal. Furthermore, the case of petitioner relates to an individual grievance and no question of law of public importance has been raised in the petition to warrant interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
6. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.