2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

This Intra-Court Appeal filed under sections 3 and 4 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is directed against an order dated 10-6-2011 passed by a learned Single Judge in Chamber.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was issued a charge sheet on 7-7-2010 under Rule 6(I) of Pakistan WAPDA Employees E&D Rules, 1978. The appellant replied to the charge-sheet on 4-8-2010 wherein he stated in clear terms that all the charges levelled against him were false and incorrect. A formal inquiry was instituted against the appellant in which the appellant was found guilty in 10 out of 12 allegations levelled against him as per report of Chief Engineer (P&E) MEPCO HQs Ltd. Multan dated 28-10-2010. Subsequently, the appellant was served with a final show cause notice on 23-5-2011 which was impugned before the learned Single Judge in Chamber.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the appellant with mala fide intent. That earlier the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 bearing No.412 of 2010 against an order passed by respondent No.2 This was felt ill by respondent No.2 and it is for this reason that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the appellant. There is no material available on the record which could form the basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. That due weight was not given to Memorandum No.1998 dated 1-6-2011 issued by the Revenue Officer (P) MEPCO Limited 1st D.G. Khan wherein it was observed that eight out of twelve allegations levelled against the appellant did not relate to him.

4. We are afraid the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant have no merit. This Court in Muhammad Akhtar Sherani and 35 others v. The Punjab Textbook Board, Lahore and 4 others 2001 PLC (C.S.) 939 has held that a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 would not be maintainable against mere issuance of a show cause notice since the appellant has been simply called upon to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded against. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Virasat Ullah v. Bashir Ahmad, Settlement Commissioner (Industries) and another (1969 SCMR 154) has also held that mere issuance of a notice by the settlement Commissioner calling upon the transferee to justify his transfer could not furnish the basis for filing a constitutional petition.

5. A bare reading of Writ Petition No.7103 of 2011 impugned before us would show that no final order has been passed against the appellant and only initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were challenged. Since no final order in disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant has been passed by the competent authority it can safely be held that the petition which was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 was not maintainable.

6. In this view of the matter, this Intra Court Appeal being without any substance is dismissed in limine. M.H./A-183/L Intra-court appeal dismissed.