' JAVED IQBAL, J.-Pursuant to complaint dated 18-1-2002 the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mailsi, against the petitioner for being habitual late-corner and absentee from duty an inquiry was conducted by Civil Judge, Vehari who found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and wilful absence. The inquiry report was submitted with the recommendation of imposing major penalty to the learned District and Sessions Judge (authority) Vehari. The learned District and Sessions Judge while concurring with the report of Inquiry Officer made the following observations:-- "I have found lot of complaints against him of every type during his service career. His superior officers, seniors and colleagues have complained against him at different times. Many inquiries against him were initiated on different charges and at different times. The record has also revealed that he was dismissed from service by many other District and Sessions Judges at different times on various charges. It would also be relevant to mention here that he, before me, has also admitted that he was dismissed from service three four times earlier. So, he has such a bad service record, which is alarming. I am definite that perhaps very few officials may be having such had record as is of his."
2. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 6-6 2001. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred which was dismissed but the order of dismissal from service was altered to that of compulsory retirement. The petitioner approached the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore by way of Appeal bearing No,133 of 2002 which has been dismissed vide judgment impugned, operative portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-- "6. Another trait of his character was revealed during the hearing after close perusal of the departmental file brought by the departmental representative. On 6th January, 2000, appellant left the office in the middle of the day by making an application which was dated 6th January, 2000, on the ground that his son was seriously ill and he had to take him to the doctor. On 17th January, 2000, Additional District and Sessions Judge, went on a round of checking, he found the appellant missing but having given an application for leave for 18-1-2000 on 17-1-2000 on the pretext that he has to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Canals, for some work of his. This application was not allowed by his immediate superior. To cover up the partial absence on 17-1-2000 at the time when the inspection was made, the application of 6th January, 2002, was utilized as leave for 17-7- 2000 by overwriting of the figure 7th over the figure 6 and before that adding figure ' 1 ' so as to make it read as 17. This interpolation with the date, probably in connivance with the Assistant Clerk of the Court, shows the bent of mind possessed by the appellant. Appellant did not realize that he had asked for full day's leave on 18-1-2000 to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Canals, but by interpolation of his earlier application for half day's leave given on 5-1-2000, converting it through forgery to 17-1-2000, the excuse given was the serious ailment of his son. The remarks by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the Authority confirm the suspicion lurking in my mind that it was not only simple absence for one day that resulted in the penalty imposed upon the appellant but it was his general character, which was certainly machiaveillian in nature. View taken by the High Court is endorsed by me. The dismissal order passed by his Authority was converted into compulsory retirement In any case, appellant is not fit to be retained in service any further. His appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
3. After having heard Mr. Ibne Hassan, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner and perusing the entire record we are of the view that no injustice whatsoever has been done with the petitioner who is not only habitual late corner and absentee but appears to be arrogant. It transpires from scrutiny of record that he did not appear before the Inquiry Officer and entered appearance after warning was administered. It is worth-mentioning that he was also dismissed on various occasions by District and Sessions Judge and subsequently reinstated on humantarian grounds.
4. In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the view that the conclusion as drawn by the Inquiry Officer duly concurred by learned District and Sessions Judge, learned High Court and upheld by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal being well-based does not warrant any interference.
' The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave refused.