1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Yar Khokhar, Under‑Secretary, Admn. IV, S&GAD, Lahore for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th November, 1992. In this Constitutional petition the petitioner has raised the question of legality of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him in May, 1990. His grievance was that these disciplinary proceedings are relatable to act of misconduct allegedly committed by the petitioner when he was on deputation with L.DA. as Naib‑Tehsildar in 1980. His case was that he was exonerated from the charges after holding disciplinary proceedings by the L.DA. as borrowing department under rule 10 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that though the petitioner was on deputation in L.DA. in 1980 and the L.DA. as borrower could initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner but before the order for exoneration of the petitioner was passed in September, 1990 he had already been repatriated to the parent department of the Government and in the year 1982 he had already been promoted to the post of Tehsildar which is in Grade‑16 and vis‑a‑vis the same the authorised officer was the Member, Board of Revenue. He also pointed out that previously L.DA. reported to the Government in the year 1987 that the petitioner should be awarded punishment as he was found guilty. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner was not made aware of this order by the L.DA. whereas on the exoneration of Muhammad Iqbal Qanungo co‑accused by the L.DA. he made an application that he too be exonerated as the evidence against the petitioner was the same on which the L.DA. passed order in September, 1990 intimating the respondents that the petitioner also stood exonerated.

3. The question whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the' respondents .in May, 1990 could not be initiated according to Efficiency and' Discipline Rules, 1975 is a question which is relatable to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant and the petitioner admittedly is a civil servant, therefore, in my view the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 212, stands ousted and the remedy of the petitioner is to file appeal before the"': Service Tribunal in case final order for awarding him punishment is passed by the departmental authority in which he can raise all the objections therefore, I would refrain from expressing any opinion on any of them.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Mr. Mahmood Akhtar, A.D.C.(G), Sargodha was appointed as Inquiry Officer when he was posted at Lahore but since he has been transferred to Sargodha it will be highly inconvenient for the petitioner who is an ailing person to travel to Sargodha for defending the said disciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondents undertakes that the respondents would appoint any other person from the Panel of Inquiry Officers maintained by the Government an Inquiry Officer at Lahore to avoid this inconvenience to the petitioner. In view of this undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondents the grievance of the petitioner in that respect stands redressed.

5. Needless to say that the Inquiry Officer shall give full opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence in defence including recording the statement of any witnesses from L.DA. which he wants to examine and the documents from L.DA. record including the findings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Muhammad Iqbal Qanungo alongwith the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of. A.A./M‑740/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Order accordingly.