' JAVED IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 7-12- 2000 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby the order, dated 13-12-1995 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Multan dismissing the petitioner from service has been kept intact.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that pursuant to disciplinary action initiated against the, petitioner on account of wilful absence major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed by means of order, dated 13-12-1995 passed, by the Senior Superintendent of Police Multan which vas assailed by means of departmental appeal which was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector- General of Police, Multan, vide order, dated 10-6-1996. The revision petition also met the same fate and dismissed by the Inspector-General of Police Punjab vide order, dated 1-3-1997.
3, Sh. Khizar Hayat, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of petitioner and mainly contended that without having a regular inquiry the major penalty of dismissal could not have been imposed. It is also contended that in fact the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of a false and concocted case got registered by him which was finally dropped by the Director Anti-Corruption Multan on 21-4-1996. It is also contended that factum of absence could not have been proved without affording proper opportunity of hearing and leading evidence to the petitioner and denial whereof amounts to serious miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that leave applied on medical grounds could not have been refused under the Leave Rules 1981.
4. We have carefully examined the contention as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have minutely perused the judgment impugned. We are not persuaded to agree with the prime contentions of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner that regular inquiry was A inevitable for the reason that it was a case of willful absence simpliciter and hardly any controversial fact justifying a thorough probe' was involved. Even otherwise regular inquiry could have been dispensed, with under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. It is not necessary that inquiry must be held in each and every case as it depends upon the circumstances of the case. The petitioner could not substantiate his ailment by producing any worthy of credence documentary evidence.
He remained on leave unauthorized which certainly amounts to willful absence amounting to misconduct which being question of fact has rightly been determined by the department findings whereof have been affirmed by learned Service Tribunal vide judgment impugned which cannot be upset without sufficient justification which is lacking in this case.
' The conclusion as arrived at by learned Service Tribunal being well-based does not warrant any interference and moreso, no question of law of public importance is involved in the matter on the basis whereof leave could be granted. The petitioner is dismissed being meritless and .