' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of learned Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 12-8-1999, whereby the service appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Revenue Patwari on 8-3-1990 by A.D.C. (G)/ Collector City, Lahore, on the direction of the Revenue Minister, Punjab. He was later dismissed from service on 20- 5-1991 on the ground that he was a dismissed employee of Lahore Development Authority (LDA).
The petitioner preferred departmental appeal against his dismissal from service and as the said appeal was not decided by the department within 90 days, he preferred an appeal before the learned Service Tribunal which was dismissed as follows:--
8. Main contention of the appellant was that the services of the appellant could not have been dismissed without observing the procedure as laid down under E&D Rules. It was further contended that nobody can be condemned unheard. Number of rulings were referred to by the learned counsel in support of his contention some of which are reported as 1994 SCMR 2232, PLD 1990 SC 666 and 1997 PLC (C.S.) 356.
9. On the other hand, the learned D.A. Pointed out that the appellant was dismissed from service by the LDA vide orders dated 16-6-1985. The appellant withheld this information while applying for appointment before the Minister for Revenue. When this fact came to the notice of the authority, necessary action was taken. It was further pointed out that no formal enquiry or show-cause notice was necessary as the appellant was dismissed from service during porbation period.
10. I have considered the arguments advanced by. The parties and find that the appellant while applying for appointment before Minister for Revenue and the appointing authority, concealed the facts of his dismissal from LDA. According to rule 4 (b) (iv) of E&D Rules, 1975, a civil servant dismissed from service is disqualified for future employment. It may be further added here that the appellant was dismissed from service by the A.D.C. (G)/Collector City, Lahore vide order dated 20- 5-1991 whereas, modification of the order of dismissal by the LDA is of subsequent dated 16-6-1986; as such it will not have any impact or the impugned order. It is also observed that as the impugned order has been passed on valid grounds and within the probation period, no show-cause notice was necessary."
3. In seeking leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case Muhammad Amjad v. Chief Engineer, WAPDA and another (1998 PSC 337), the petitioner's dismissal from service could not be sustained in law. In the above- cited case, it has been held by this Court that where the termination of service of an employee is on account of misconduct then in that case even if he is a temporary employee or a person employed on contract basis or probationer, he is entitled to fair opportunity to clear his position, which deafly means that he will be proceeded against in terms of Efficiency and Discipline Rules for the alleged misconduct. In the case before us, the petitioner was appointed on the recommendations of the Revenue Minister in spite of ban and on suppression of the fact that he was a previously dismissed employee of LDA. In the circumstances of the case, in our view, the petitioner's case is distinguishable. In any case, the grant of leave is discretionary with this Court and leave under Article 212 of the Constitution is to be granted only in cases where question of law of public importance arises. The present case is one of individual grievance and no question of law of public importance arises in this case. Apart from it, the conduct of the petitioner in suppressing a material fact at the time of seeking fresh employment in the Government, disentitled him to seek discretionary relief from the Court. For the aforesaid reasons, no case for grant of leave is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused.