' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18th February, 1999 whereby Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner, calling in question the orders dated 14th May, 1996, 6th January 1997 and 7th July, 1997 passed by Superintendent of Police. C.I.A., Multan, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range, Multan and Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, respectively.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that petitioner was proceeded against departmentally in pursuance of charge-sheet dated 19th March, 1996 based on a report submitted by Inspector Saif Ali of C.I.A., Multan vide Letter No,3/PA dated 17th March, 1996. Relevant para therefrom is reproduced hereinabelow:-- ' "As per report dated 17-3-1996, submitted by the Inspector Saif Ali of C.I.A., Multan (Now dismissed) on the application of Fazal Maseeh that on 18-2-1996. I alongwith H.C. Sajjad Ahmad No,2288 was found bargaining with the relatives of the accused Sajjad George. According to Inspector Saif Ali, he reached at the spot and found you present there alongwith the above said officials and the accused alongwith 6 bottles of liquor. The Inspector directed you to take the accused person to C.I.A. Staff and initiate legal proceedings against the accused but you neither took the accused to C.I.A. Staff nor initiated any legal action against him. The next day, you met with the Inspector and disclosed that the accused had slipped away from his custody."
3. Accordingly, inquiry was conducted against the petitioner by an Inquiry Officer during course whereof sufficient opportunity was afforded to petitioner to participate in the inquiry proceedings but for one or the other reason, he absented himself. In this behalf, Chairman, Federal Service Tribunal in the impugned judgment has mentioned the events and the progress of the inquiry and concluded that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity of hearing but he did not participate in the proceedings. On receipt of the inquiry report petitioner was dismissed from service by Superintendent of Police, C.I.A., Multan vide order dated 14th May, .1996. Appeal filed by him before Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan against the order of dismissal was also dismissed on 6th January, 1997. Similarly, he filed a Revision before. Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore but without success.
' Feeling dissatisfied from the above-noted orders, petitioner approached the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore by way of filing appeal but the same was also dismissed by means of impugned order. As such instant petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel contended that petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing to resist the charge framed by the Inquiry Officer. He further informed that on the same allegation, another Constable has been reinstated into service, therefore, petitioner is also liable to be reinstated accordingly.
5. After having gone through the contents of the inquiry report as well as impugned judgment, we are inclined to hold that full opportunity was given to him but he himself did not participate in the proceedings for the reasons best known to him. As far as the case of other constable is concerned, who has been reinstated into service, in this behalf suffice it to say that his case cannot be discussed because we do not know what type of material was brought by the department against him and under what circumstances he was reinstated into service.
' Thus, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for exercise of jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under. Article 212, sub-Article (3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, therefore, petition is dismissed and leave declined.