2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
AZAM SUBHANI Versus DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER, LODHRAN
| Citation | 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | AZAM SUBHANI Versus DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER, LODHRAN |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (AZAM SUBHANI Versus DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER, LODHRAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
R.4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Arts. 199 & 212
Constitutionai petition
Petitioner had called in question the validity of order passed by the Authority whereby show-cause notice was issued to him
Petitioner being a civil servant, Constitutional petition by him was not maintainable in view of bar contained in Art.212 of Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another v. Sheikh Abdul Aziz 1998 SCMR 91; Government of the Punjab through Collector, Faisalabad and another v. Hudabia Textiles Mills, Faisalabad through Chairman and 4 others 2001 SCMR 209; Rai Ahmed Ali v. Province of Punjab and others 1999 SCMR 1832 and Sajjad Ahmad Javed Bhatti v. The Secretary, Establishment Division and 11 others 1999 SCMR 2186 ref. Nemo for the Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Miscellaneous No. 1137. of 2001. . Tahir Mehmood for Petitoner. For reasons mentioned in this C.M., the same is allowed and the writ petition is restored to its original number. At this stage, learned counsel wants to argue the main petition. He is allowed to do so. MAIN CASE
2. Arguments heard:
3. Through the instant Constitutional petition the petitioner has called in question the validity of the order passed by the District Health Officer, Lodhran (respondent No. l), dated 30-4-2001, whereby the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice as to why an action should not be taken against him in accordance with Rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1999. The petitioner has also assailed the validity of show-cause notice on the ground that this show-cause notice was issued to him by respondent No. l on the written instructions of respondent No. 2 contained in letter Annexure C.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that show-cause notice is based on mala fide and has been issued under the undue influence of respondent No.2. Learned counsel has relied upon Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another. v. Sheikh Abdul Aziz (1998 SCMR 91) and Government of the Punjab through Collector, Faisalabad and another v. Hudabia Textiles Mills, Faisalabad through Chairman and four others (2001 SCMR 209). When confronted he admits that the petitioner is a civil servant.
5. Since the petitioner is a civil servant, this Constitutional petition is not maintainable because there is a clear bar contained in Article 212 of the. Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, whereby such matters are to be placed before the Service Tribunal and cannot be entertained in exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court. It was so held in Rai Ahmed Ali v. Province of Punjab and others (1999 SCMR 1832) and Sajjad Ahmad Javed 13hatti v. The Secretary, Establishment Division and 11 others (1999 SCMR 2186). The cases referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner are general in nature and not applicable to the circumstances of the present case. Even otherwise only a show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and mere issuance of the show-cause notice would not bring the case of the petitioner within the category of an aggrieved person.
6. For what has been discussed above, since there is a clear bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition, which stands dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A-237/L Petition dismissed.