2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JAWAD HASSAN, J.

Through this single judgment this Court intends to decide the instant petition as well as Writ Petition No.38513/2016, Criminal Original No.3305-W/2016 and Review Petition No.5/2017 as all the same are outcome of impugned order dated 24.11.2016 whereby the Petitioner has been placed under suspension.

2. Brief facts revealing from the instant petition are that on the application of one Khalil Ahmed containing certain allegations of fraud etc. against the Petitioner and others the Respondent No.2 placed the Petitioner under suspension on the directions of the Respondent No.1 vide the impugned order. In W.P. No.38513 of 2016 the Petitioner has challenged order dated 03.12.2016 passed by Respondent No.4 therein, whereby the Petitioner was summoned in person along with record. The Criminal Original No.3305-W of 2016 was filed by the Petitioner alleging therein that the Respondents have contravened the order dated 02.12.2016 of this Court. The Petitioner has also filed Review Petition No.5 of 2017 seeking recalling of order dated 11.01.2017 passed by this Court in W.P. No.37951/2016 whereby the petitioner was directed to handover the revenue record to the Respondents for routine working.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondents subject to maintainability of the petitions and in response thereto the Respondents filed report and parawise comments denying all the allegations levelled in all the petitions and prayed for dismissal of the same.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the grounds that the Respondent No.1 did not have any authority to direct the Respondent No.2 for taking action against the Petitioner; that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of political pressure just to harass the Petitioner; that the impugned order has been passed without any inquiry; that with respect to the terms and conditions of Petitioner's services, none else but only the Respondent No.2 was competent to initiate proceedings against the Petitioner under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (the "PEEDA Act, 2006"); that the Respondents have violated the order of this Court dated 02.12.2016, as such they are liable to be penalized; that orders dated 03.12.2016 as well as 11.01.2017 are also liable to be set aside being passed against the law and facts. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the case titled Mushtaq Hussain v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Education and 2 others (2014 PLC (C.S.) 602), Raja Talat Mahmood v. Ismat Ehtishanul Haq (1999 SCMR 2215) and Haji Muhammad Rahim and others v. Mst. Surayya Rahim (1999 CLC 1392).

5. Learned Law Officer has vehemently contested the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and contended that all the petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner is a civil servant and Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 specifically bars the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the matter in hand as the same pertains to the terms and conditions of Petitioner's services.

6. Admittedly the petitioner has been suspended by the Department and yet no final order has been passed against him. The Petitioner in paragraph 13 of his petition himself admitted that he is a civil servant. Besides, suspension is not a punishment and suspension of a Government servant during the course of his service simply means that no work is to be taken from him during the period of suspension. Suspension is only a temporary measure, wherein the Petitioner is entitled to receive his full emoluments in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled, "Government of N.W.F.P. v. I.A. Sherwani (PLD 1994 SC 72).

7. Admittedly the prayer of the Petitioner pertains to terms and conditions of a civil servant which in the case in hand is. For enforcement of the same Tribunals have been constituted under Article 212 of the Constitution which has exclusive jurisdiction in the matter to look into and decide the questions relating to terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. The afore-noted bar has been sufficiently dilated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its various pronouncements and has held in unequivocal and clear terms that the bar is absolute. Reliance can be placed on the judgments reported as "Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others v. Province of Sindh and others" (2015 SCMR 456), "National Assembly Secretariat v. Manzoor Ahmed and another" (2015 SCMR 253), "Peer Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and others" (2007 SCMR 54), "Asadullah Rashid v. Haji Muhammad Muneer and others (1998 SCMR 2129), "Khalid Mahmood Wattoo v. Government of Punjab and others" (1998 SCMR 2280), "Khalil ur Rehman and others v. Government of Pakistan and others" (PLD 1981 Karachi 750) and "Dr. Ghazanfarullah and 2 others v. Secretary Health, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 6 others" (2010 PLC (CS) 51).

8. In view of the fact that Petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy by approaching the departmental appellate authority and then the respective Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance, therefore, jurisdiction of this Court is barred. While dealing with the question of maintainability of a petition before this Court in the wake of an alternate efficacious remedy available to a litigant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in judgments reported as "Indus Trading and Contracting Company v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi and others" (2016 SCMR 842), "Dr. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi v. Ali S. Habib and others" (2011 SCMR 1813) and "Muhammad Abbasi v. S.H.O. Bhara Kahu and 7 others" (PLD 2010 SC 969) has held that in the wake of availability of an alternate efficacious remedy, jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition as well as all the above mentioned petitions, being not maintainable, are dismissed. ZC/W-2/L Petition dismissed.