' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 3-9- 2001 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Service Appeals Nos.1856 and 1857 of 2000 whereby the same were dismissed.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the petition are that the petitioner while posted as Junior Clerk in the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Okara, in Arms Licensing Branch, prepared/signed so many application forms of Arms Licence without police reports and sanctions of the District Magistrate.
The petitioner was charge-sheeted with several allegations that he issued arms licences to various persons without having any sanction from the District Magistrate and without obtaining reports from the concerned police stations. Preliminary inquiries were got conducted through Mian Nasir Jamal Hotiana and Mr. Umar Farooq Alvi, Magistrates wherein it was concluded that the petitioner during the year 1988, while being posted in Arms Branch prepared a lot of application forms and prepared licences without police reports and without sanction of the District Magistrate/Sanctioning Authority. It was thus held that prima facie the petitioner appeared to be guilty of embezzlement, corruption, fraud, subversion, receipt of illegal gratification, irresponsibility, preparation of bogus Arms Licences, inefficiency and misconduct.
3. Since the petitioner could not reply satisfactorily to the charge-sheet, as such a detailed inquiry was ordered and Mr. Muhammad Arshad Javid, MIC, was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who recorded the statements of the prosecuton witnesses and that of the petitioner and his defence witnesses. On the completion of the inquiry, the said Magistrate submitted his report on 26-6-1999.
According to the Inquiry Report all the record was prepared by the petitioner and signed by Aamir Amin, Head Clerk. Thus they enjoyed all the powers of the District Magistrate. He neither obtained the sanction of the Sanctioning Authority on the arms licence nor maintained any such record thus imposition of major penalty against the petitioner under there Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 was recommended.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. On 1-7-1999 he submitted an application to the effect that he had already submitted an application praying therein for supply of the copies of the file or its inspection which contained noting-sheets whereby the permission of issuing the licences had been given. He however, verbally admitted the fact that he had prepared and entered so many Arms Licences in the relevant Register with the permission of the District Magistrate but the noting-sheet has not been made available to him intentionally.
Had the same been made available, he could have easily proved that the District Magistrate had allowed him to prepare the Arms Licences. Resultantly, the petitioner was awarded major penalty of removal from service on 21-7-1999 by the competent authority.
5. Mr. M.S. Baqir, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been removed from service without applying the proper procedures under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. According to him, the file relating to the approval of the competent authority on the Arms licences issued, had been lost by the respondents themselves and the petitioner was implicated falsely.
6, We have given anxious thought to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record as well as the proceedings of the matter in minute particular.
7. In our opinion a proper procedure as laid down under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 has been adopted and the petitioner has been removed from service in accordance with law after issuing him a charge-sheet and holding preliminary and final inquiries in the matter with a chance of personal hearing. Inquiry Reports reveal that the petitioner during personal hearing had admitted that he had prepared/issued a lot of Arms Licences which fact goes to show that he admitted the guilt of the charges levelled against him.
8. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.