1980SCMR 337 (PLP)

ANWARUL HAQ, C J.‑This petition is barred by 14 days, but we condone the delay subject to all just exceptions, and proceed to examine it on merits. The petitioner Abdur Razzaq was serving as a clerk in Mandra Sub Post Office, when on 3rd December, 1974, he was served with a charge sheet containing nine counts. As he denied the allegations made against him, a regular inquiry was held by an Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, and he was found guilty of all the charges except those at Serial Nos. 1, 6 and

7. As a result of these findings, he was dismissed from service by the Deputy Post‑Mater General on the 31st of August, 1976. His appeal was dismissed by the Postmaster General‑ by his order dated the 20th of April, 1977. He then filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal at Islamabad, but the same has been dismissed by the Tribunal by its order dated the 16th of January, 1979. He seeks leave to appeal. It is contended by Mr. M. S. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner‑ (a) that the Tribunal has failed to examine the evidence to satisfy itself whether the charges stood proved or not against the petitioner, and (b) that the Tribunal has also failed to examine the propriety of the punishment awarded to. the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length we have formed the view that no justification has been made out for our interference in the matter. As to the first contention, we find that the Tribunal has observed that it had gone through the evidence recorded in the case, and had come to the conclusion that the inquiry Officer had examined the case wit thoroughness and had not reached any perverse conclusions such as a prudent man could not have; reached under ordinary circumstances ; and that the Deputy Postmaster General had also thoroughly examined the evident and the report of the Inquiry Officer before ordering the dismissal of the petitioner. In the face of this statement appearing in the order of the Service Tribunal, it is not possible for us to hold that the Tribunal had not properly examined the evidence so as to satisfy itself whether the charges framed against the petitioner stood .proved or not on the record. The learned counsel referred us to Rustom Ali Khan and others v. The State and another (1968 S C M R 281) and Wali Muhammad v. The State (1969 S C M R 612) for the purpose of arguing that in a suitable case the Supreme Court could itself examine the evidence, if it came to the conclusion that the Court or Tribunal concerned had not done so in a proper manner. On the view that we have formed about the quality of the order of the Tribunal, the two cases relied upon by the learned counsel have no application. As to the second point, namely, about the quantum of punishment, it is correct that there is no discussion on this point in the order of the Tribunal, but it is clear that once the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that several charges stood proved against the petitioner, it did not regard his dismissal as being inappropriate in the circumstances of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.