P L D 1967 Lahore 1123 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD GUL, J.‑The petitioner is a member of P. S. 1'. and is on leave preparatory to retirement. Prior to his proceeding on leave, he was the Director, Anti‑Corruption Establishment, West Pakistan, Lahore, since 1960 having held the same office once earlier in 1957‑

58. According to the averments in the peti tion, the petitioner has a commendable record of service throughout; he is recipient of numerous award and decorations.

2. What has occasioned this writ petition under Article 98 of the Constitution is that the petitioner has learnt "on reliable information . . . . . from various sources (that) an enquiry into cooked up allegations is being made against the petitioner . . . . . by some official agency of West Pakistan. This, according to the petitioner, is because as the Director of Anti‑Corruption estab lishment and even before he held that office he was entrusted with the conduct of enquiries against certain highly placed officers who have now personal animus against the petitioner and who are now responsible for the so‑called hush hush enquiry against the petitioner. The relief claimed is that it be dec lared that the impugned proceedings against the petitioner are illegal and without lawful authority and the same be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was a member of Central Service and as such, was amenable exclusively to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Central Government even if he was employed in connection with the affairs of the Province. Learned counsel based his argu ment on the provisions of Articles 131(1) and 135(a) read with Entry 40 in Third Schedule to the Constitution, according to which the Central Government has the exclusive legislative authority and therefore administrative control over All Pakistan Services, which includes the Police Service of Pakistan. Support for this argument was also sought from the Establishment Divi sion's letter No. 2/33/63/131, dated the 31st May 1965. which inter alga referred to the exclusive administrative control of the Central Government over the members of All Pakistan Services even if they are employed in connection with the affairs of the Provinces. It was emphasized in this letter, that in view of the above provisions in the Constitution, "any exercise of the executive authority by the Provinces, in relation to Central Government servants will be unconstitutional . . . . ." The broad proposition convassed by learned counsel, so far as it goes, is not open to any exception. But the question is whether there has been any violation of the above provisions of the Constitution in the petitioner's case, so as to lay a foundation for interference in writ jurisdiction? Needless to say, that vide Article 98(3)(b) the High Court is precluded to grant in exercise of its writ jurisdic tion, any relief to a civil servant except in relation to a condition of service specified in the Constitution. It is not the petitioner's case that the Provincial Government has instituted any disciplinary or other penal proceedings against him. Indeed the averments in the petition are remarkable for their vagueness; the purpose or the nature of the enquiry remains undisclosed and even the agency or the officer conducting the alleged enquiry remains unidentified. All that the petitioner's learned counsel could say in this behalf was that certain officers of the Provincial Police who had animus against the petitioner are engaged in manipulating evidence against him to bring him to grief. Thus it is clear that the petitioner seeks to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court on ground which are either imaginary or at least exaggerated. Therefore, the petition must fail on that ground.

4. Even on the facts stated, the constitutional objection resting on Articles 131 and 135 would not avail to the petitioner. These Articles cannot be read so as to preclude the Provincial Government from investigating into facts of a case, which in its opinion requires investigation even if a member of a Central Service serving in connection with the Province or for that matter the Centre is concerned with those facts. There is a clear distinc tion between the investigation of facts and to take appropriate remedial or punitive measures on the basis of the facts discovered. It would indeed be a startling proposition to suggest, that merely because a member of a Central Service is concerned in a certain casein his official capacity, the Provincial Government cannot undertake the investigation of such facts. Such power is inherent in the Provincial Government, being relatable to the maintenance of law and order which is its direct constitutional responsibility. It is only when the matter reaches the stage of taking appropriate remedial or penal measures, on the basis of facts discovered that the question would arise whether a member of a Central Service is amenable to the disciplinary or administrative control of the Provincial Government. In the instant case even if the averments in the petition are accepted at their face value, all that the Provincial Government seeks to do is to endeavour to discover facts relating to some transactions. This might be described as "the preliminary inquiry". The facts discovered might show that persons other than the petitioner are also concerned in the transaction, and it will then be the Provincial Government's concern to decide how to proceed against each such person. Therefore, it is not until the petitioner actually receives a notice of formal charges or any other notice of the kind that he will have a cause of grievance if the matter is being pursued against him not by an appropriate authority under the provisions of the Constitution. Till then, the petitioner's fears cannot lay any foundation for interference in writ jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on paragraph 22 of the Letters Patent of the Lahore High Court which, inter alia, invests this Court with the power "to direct the preliminary investigation or trial of any criminal case by any officer or Court otherwise competent to investigate or try it, though such case belongs in ordinary course to the jurisdiction of some other officer or Court". It is difficult to understand how this paragraph is attracted to the petitioner's case. There is no allegation in the writ petition that any criminal case is being investigated against the petitioner. The allegation in the writ petition vaguely referred to some enquiry, the nature of which remains undisclosed. Even the persons against whom the petitioner alleges personal animosity remain unidentified.

6. In the above circumstances, therefore, the writ petition is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. A. H. Petition dismissed.