' JAVED IQBAL, J.---Pursuant to disciplinary action initiated under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad by means of order, dated 15-9-1998. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was rejected by DIG of Police vide order, dated 5-5-1999. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was partly accepted by the Inspector-General of Police and the penalty of dismissal from service was altered to that of compulsory retirement.
2. Mr. Zahid Hussain Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner has contended that the factum of wilful absence could not be proved as the petitioner never remained absent but on account of serious ailment could not perform his duties and medical certificates in support thereof were produced before authorities concerned but to no avail. It is urged with vehemence that proper opportunity of hearing was never afforded to the petitioner which resulted into serious miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that the instructions contained in. Para. 9-1(v) of Circular No, 2661-2706/DISC-1, dated 21-12-1995 which, inter alia, provides for regular inquiry where major penalty of dismissal was to be awarded has been violated.
3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. The judgment impugned has been perused. After having gone through the entire record we are of the considered opinion that the prime contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner seems to be devoid of merit as it does not find support from record which speaks otherwise. Every possible effort was made by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad to get the show-cause notice served upon the petitioner but in vain. A messenger namely Muhammad Mansha, Police Constable, was also sent to get the process served. The A petitioner kept himself disassociated knowingly and deliberately from the disciplinary proceedings and thus it cannot be agitated now that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. The factum of wilful absence amounting to misconduct has been proved. The learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner while heavily relying on the instructions contained in para. 9-1(v) of Circular No,2661-2706/DISC-1, dated 21-12-1995 argued that the regular inquiry could not have been dispensed with in oblivion of the act that inquiry was held by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gulberg who found the petitioner guilty of the charge even otherwise the regular inquiry can be dispensed with in view of the provisions as envisaged in Rule 6 of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The petitioner was dismissed on two different occasions from service and earned twelve punishment on account of wilful absence which indicates that he is least interested in his service.
4. The conclusion as arrived at by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal is strictly in accordance with law and settled norms of justice and being well based hardly warrants any interference. No question of law of public importance is involved in the matter on the basis whereof leave to appeal could be granted and accordingly the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and .