ABDUL MAJEED Versus STATE

ORDER

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ The petitioner was a Patwari. After a departmental inquiry he was dismissed from service. His appeal before the Commissioner failed and the Service Tribunal declined to interfere with the orders of the departmental authorities.

.

2. One of the charges against the petitioner was of corruption. Admittedly, his wife had purchased 5 kanals and 10 marlas of land worth Rs.75,000. His explanation was that most of the money for the land was provided by his brother. The departmental authorities as well as the learned Tribunal found this explanation unsatisfactory. After hearing the learned counsel, we are not persuaded that their findings suffer from any infirmity. No substantial question of law of public importance arises in this petition. Leave is refused.

M. I. /A‑319/S Petition dismissed.