' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 19-5-2001 of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, through which service appeal filed by the petitioner against his dismissal from service vide order, dated 31-12-1999, passed by the departmental authority, was dismissed.
2. Facts briefly leading to the filing of this petition in the background, are that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC)B-5 in Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) on 12-1-1984 and was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on 30-9-1987. The petitioner on promotion as Commercial Assistant (B.11) w,e,f, 19-1-1995 was posted in Revenue Office, Loralai Division of Province of Balochistan. During the year 1997, the petitioner having been found involved in the fraud committed in Cash Section of that Department, was served with charge-sheet containing the following allegations:- "On scrutiny of the relevant record of Cash Section by the Revenue Officer, an amount of Rs,24,98,138 was detected as bogus posting. On conducting the field inquiry of various premises/formations, your involvement in the fraud has been proved. As such you are held responsible for the same which falls under the purview of Authority's E & D Rules."
3. On denial of the allegations by the petitioner through written reply, a regular inquiry was ordered to be conducted and in consequence thereto an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The stand of the petitioner in the written reply to the show-cause notice as well as before the Inquiry Officer was that at the relevant time, he was posted in Billing Section whereas fraud was committed in Cash Section and therefore, he being not concerned with the matter was wrongly held responsible. The Inquiry Officer in the light of the evidence and the material brought on record, found the petitioner guilty of the charges and submitted report with the following conclusions:- "(i) Misappropriation of Rs,22,56,421 was made through bogus cash posting, in the consumers accounts. Of Revenue Office, Loralai, during 9/97 to 11/97.
(ii) Due to timely detection of Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, the then Revenue Officer Loralai, the suspected amounts were debited to respective consumers thereby saving authority from huge pecuniary loss.
(iii) The negligence of staff posted in Billing Section gave opportunity to other staff to send forged documents to WAPDA Computer Centre.
(iv) The charge is proved against the accused.
(Sd.)
(Nadir Ali Khoso), Enquiry Officer."
4. The competent authority having considered the result of inquiry conducted against the petitioner under Water and Power Development Authority (E & D) Rules, 1978, served him with final show-cause notice and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner dismissed him from service vide order, dated 31-12-1999. The order of dismissal of petitioner from service was further upheld by the appellate authority in the departmental appeal and in service appeal by the Service Tribunal.
5. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while repeating the stand taken by the petitioner before the Service Tribunal has contended (a) that the finding given by the Inquiry Officer were contrary to the factual position; (b) that the petitioner was not posted in Cash Section where the alleged fraud was committed and he was wrongly held responsible for committing the fraud and found guilty of the charges; (c) that the Service Tribunal without attending the matter in its true perspective and applying the independent mind to the facts of case, affirmed the findings of the departmental authority; (d) that the Tribunal while taking a different view of the matter in the Service appeals preferred by co-accused of the petitioner in the same matter, allowed their appeals and reinstated them in service whereas the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed without distinguishing his case on facts. Learned counsel forcefully argued that petitioner was made scapegoat as the fraud was committed in Cash Section and the petitioner while posted in the Billing Section was not directly or indirectly concerned with the affairs of the Cash Section.
6. Mr, M.S. Khattak, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has contended that judgment of the Tribunal was based on sound reasoning and in any case the findings of guilt of the petitioner arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, were affirmed by the Tribunal and the same would not be questionable before this Court on the ground that a different view of the matter was possible.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. We are afraid the findings on question of fact cannot be challenged before this Court even if the same, as per contention of the learned counsel, were erroneous. The perusal of record would not show any legal defect or infirmity in the proceedings before the departmental forum or the Service Tribunal. The contention being raised by the learned counsel pertaining to the factual controversy were dealt with by the Tribunal in the light of findings of the Inquiry Officer raised on evidence which cannot be adjudicated by this Court. The reinstatement of co-accused of petitioner by the Tribunal, who were proceeded against by the department for the same charge, would not provide a valid ground to the petitioner to be treated in the same manner and further notwithstanding the posting of the petitioner in Billing Section, the Inquiry Officer, having found him involved in the fraud held him guilty and the Tribunal without taking any exception dismissed his appeal. We may observe that neither the finding of facts recorded by the Tribunal can be assailed before this Court through appraisal of evidence nor any question of law of public importance is involved in this petition to call for interference of this Court.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we find no substance in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.