1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby Allah Nawaz Malik, Assistant Director (Drainage) office of the Chief Engineer, Public Health Department, Lahore, wants this Court to declare that part of the order/notification No. S. O. (SVI) E‑7/81, dated 8th January, 1983 whereby it has been directed that de novo proceedings from the stage of personal hearing be conducted against the petitioner, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading up to this writ petition in brief are that Allah Nawaz Malik, the petitioner, was compulsorily retired through orders issued vide Housing and Physical Planning Department Notification No. S. O. II (PHE) 5/106/78; dated 2nd December, 1981. This notification was, however, rescinded by the Governor of the Punjab through impugned notification issued by the Chief Secretary, Punjab, on 8tb January, 1983. The disputed part of the notification, which has been challenged in this writ petition is as under "The rescission of these orders is without prejudice to the de novo pro ceedings being undertaken against the aforesaid officer under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 from the stage of personal hearing to be afforded by the authority ‑ under rule 8." 2‑A. On 20th June, 1.983 I had called for parawise comments and report from respondent No. 2 and had directed that no final order should be passed till further orders and the case was adjourned to 10th July, 1983. On 4th July, 1983 it came to my notice that Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, would be closed on 10th July, 1983 therefore, I directed the office to fix this petition on 9th July, 1983. The order was passed in the presence of Mr. Zahoor‑ul‑Hassan Khan Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who was present in the Court in connection with Civil Revisions Nos. 782/ 1980 and 783/1980. He was informed accordingly. Today the petitioner as well as his learned counsel Mr. Zahoor‑ul‑Hassan Khan, Advocate, are present. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has entered appearance at the call of the Court.

3. From the statement of the facts given above it appears that the in quiry is still pending against the petitioner. His main grievance is that de novo proceedings from the stage of personal hearing have been passed in violation of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The learned counsel has informed that this objection has been raised by the petitioner in reply to the show‑cause notice filed before the punishing authority. Since after hearing the learned counsel for the parties I feel per suaded to agree with the preliminary objection raised by the learned Assis tant Advocate‑General as to the maintainability of the writ petition, there fore, without waiting for the comments and entering into merits Of the writ petition I propose to dispose of the writ petition at this stage.

4. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has relied on Khalil‑ur Rahman and others v. Government of Pakistan and others (P L D 1981 K4r. 750), a Full Bench ruling, to contend that the impugned order although not final one is outside the jurisdiction of the High Court. As against this the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the jurisdiction of the service tribunal is confined to entertain appeals from final orders made by the departmental authorities, jurisdiction in respect of other orders particularly interlocutory orders remains intact so far writ jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned.

5. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel on this pro position with care I feel inclined to follow the view taken in the case‑law-cited by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General wherein it has been observ ed in para. 9 of the judgment "It was then contended that inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal has been confined to entertain appeals from "final" orders made by the departmental authorities, the jurisdiction in respect of other orders continues to remain intact so far as the High Court is concerned. In the view that we have taken, there can be no cavil against this proposition of law. However, it seems to us that if the impugned order, although not final so far as the departmental autho rity passing is concerned is in the nature of a step towards the final orders that may eventually be passed, apparently such interlocutory order will eventually merge in the final order and in any case can be brought up before the Service Tribunal as an appeal from the final order. Clearly, therefore, such orders which are in the nature of interlocutory steps and are germane to the final order which is appeal‑I able before the Tribunal will also be outside the jurisdiction of the High Court." In this view of the matter I do not desire to interfere with the impugned order.

6. For what has been stated above, the petition is dismissed in limine.

7. Resultantly, the stay order dated 20th June, 1983 stands automati cally vacated. The Assistant Advocate‑General to inform respondent No. 2 on telephone and office shall also inform respondent No. 2 telegraphically. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.