' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Leave to appeal is sought by the petitioners against judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, whereby Appeal No.445 of 1992 of respondent was allowed, orders of the petitioners, dated 6-6-1983, 1-4-1984 and 18-8-1992 were set aside and he was reinstated in service with the direction to treat the intervening period as leave without pay.
2. The Service Tribunal was approached by the respondent through Appeal No.445 of 1992 afore- referred on, inter alia, the ground that neither any formal charge was ever framed and communicated to him nor the case of the petitioners/Department and the Inquiry Officer was supported by the prosecution witnesses. He was also not given a chance to produce evidence in rebuttal. He was not even supplied with a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer with the cumulative effect that the appellant before the Tribunal was denied the right to defend himself.
3. The Tribunal considered the case of the petitioners/Department as made out in the written objections filed by them to the effect that the inquiry was held in accordance with the relevant E & D Rules; that the allegations were properly communicated through show-cause notice; that he was also heard in person and that he did not apply for the copy of the Inquiry Report. It was in para. 4 of the impugned judgment, dated 15-12-1996 that, after taking into consideration the respective merits of the case of the petitioners/Department as also the respondent, the Tribunal came to the following conclusions:-- "...Neither the appellant has admitted the receipt of a show-cause notice nor the respondents have provided a copy thereof. The record does not clearly bring out whether the charges were in fact communicated to the appellant in a formal way. Since the inquiry was held by the D.S.P., it can be presumed that the appellant was well aware of the charges which must have been brought to his notice. This is amply borne out by a perusal of a statement recorded by the inquiry officer. ... However, the statements made by the respondents clearly show that the said inquiry was of preliminary nature, .... It is also admitted that the copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the appellant the failure to provide the appellant a copy of the inquiry report was unwarranted. The result is that the appellant was deprived of an opportunity to defend himself or clear his position on the findings of the inquiry officer.
' While the appellant has totally denied the charge of having any relation with the appellant.
' Further, a very casual procedure was adopted for ascertaining the age of the said lady. According to the statement of the appellant, she was about 60 years of age whereas the age of the said lady was assessed at 40 through some inquiry the details of which have not been..... Considering the statement of the lady ..., the statement of the appellant about the age of the lady appears to be correct. The record clearly shows that there was some dispute between Mst. Aisha Bibi and her former husband Yaqoob Shah and they were living in the same house and the appellant was also known to him. Beyond this, the story about the appellant's illicit relation with Aisha Bibi and his beating of Yaqoob Shah at police post does not stand corroborated or proved even with the help of the record produced by the respondents. The appellant was not allowed to defend himself in a formal inquiry. In this case where factual controversy existed, it was incumbent on the respondents to hold a regular inquiry. The result is that the appellant has been removed from service on the basis of unproved allegations."
(Underlining is ours).
4. Mr. Muhamamd Anwar Ghuman, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support, of this petition, has simply argued that there was enough material on the record to remove him from service and that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, dated 15-12-1996 is sans any support from the Law/Rules applicable to the lis.
5. On a query from the Bench Mr. Muhammad Anwar Ghuman frankly admitted that the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal after hearing the parties and after a thorough scrutiny of the record, do not suffer from any misreading whatsoever. Even otherwise the failure on the part of the petitioners/Department to hold a regular inquiry in the case of the respondent has not been disputed. The Tribunal was on the right rails when it held that the very fact that the petitioners decided to issue show-cause notice to the respondent was tantamount to treating the inquiry as 'preliminary inquiry'. Moreover, it is not even so much as alleged that between 15-12-1996 and to date the petitioners have made any move to initiate a regular inquiry against the respondent.
6. Be that as it may, no question of general public importance has even so much been alleged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in this cause. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed and leave refused.