2024 PLP 130 (MLD)

JAWAD HASSAN, J.

By way of this Constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution"), the Petitioner has challenged orders dated 28.06.2021 and 19.06.2021 passed by the Respondents.

2. Facts of the case are that the Petitioner was the employee of the Respondents and was proceeded under the provisions of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (the "Act"). He was recommended to impose major penalty of dismissal from service by the inquiry committee vide order dated 19.03.2021. The said order was challenged through departmental appeal before the Respondent No.1 who vide order dated 28.06.2021 rejected the appeal and upheld the order of Deputy Registrar (Admin-II). Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner inter alia contended that impugned orders are against the law and facts; that the impugned orders have been passed in a mechanical way, as such, the same are the result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondents objected to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the Petitioner has efficacious and alternate remedy available against impugned order passed by the Respondent No.1.

5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. It evinces from the record that proceedings under the provisions of the "Act" were initiated against the Petitioner and he, after issuance of show cause notice under section 13(4) and providing personal hearing, was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service in terms of section 4(1)(b)(vi) of the "Act" vide order dated 19.03.2021 passed under section 13 of the "Act". The Petitioner availed the remedy of appeal provided under section 16 of the "Act" before the Respondent No.1 and said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 28.06.2021. It is noted that, against the aforesaid order, a specific remedy of revision is available to the Petitioner under section 17 of the "Act" which the Petitioner has not availed rather instituted this petition. Section 17 of the "Act" specifically deals with the issue which, for the sake of brevity, is reproduced below:

17. Revision

(1) The Chief Minister, Chief Secretary or the Administrative Secretary or any other appellate authority may call for the record of any proceedings within one year of the order of exoneration or imposition of a penalty, passed by the competent authority or the order of appellate authority, as the case may be, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such proceedings or order. (Underline for emphasis)

7. From the bare reading of the above-said section it is very much clear that a remedy of revision is available before the Chancellor. It is settled law by now that this Court, before granting relief to a Petitioner by exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, must satisfy itself regarding the non-availability of any alternate remedy, or in case Court is inclined to grant relief even in presence of alternate remedy, Court should be satisfied that circumstances of the case make the other remedy inadequate. While dealing with question of maintainability of a petition before this Court, in presence of an alternate efficacious remedy available to a litigant, the Supreme Court of Pakistan in judgments reported as "Indus Trading and Contracting Company v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi and others" (2011 SCMR 842), "Dr. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi v. Ali S. Habib and others" (2011 SCMR 1813) and "Muhammad Abbasi v. SHO Bhara Kahu and 7 others" (PLD 2010 SC 969) has held that in presence of availability of an alternate efficacious remedy, jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked.

8. From the above, it can safely be held that this Court is bound to exercise its extra ordinary Constitutional jurisdiction where no other adequate remedy is provided by law, but in the present case alternate remedy of revision is available to the Petitioner.

9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioner has requested that this petition, along with all of its annexures, may be treated as revision in terms of section 17 of the "Act" and be remitted to the Chancellor for its decision, as per law. Learned counsel for the Respondents does not oppose this course of action.

10. In this view of above and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, let a certified copy of this petition along with all the annexures be sent to the Chancellor, who shall decide it by treating it as revision after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the Petitioner expeditiously as per law within a period of two (02) months from the receipt of certified copy of this order.

11. Disposed of. MQ/I-16/L Order accordingly.