1975 PLP 176 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.‑

This petition for special leave to appeal No. 670 of 1974 filed by Captain Muhammad Azhar petitioner who being a Law Graduate argued his case in person has a rather chequered back ground. It is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 8‑7‑1974 whereby the learned Judge in Chamber dismissed the petitioner's Writ Petition No. 1245‑S of 1974. The petitioner was a Development Officer in the former Province of West Pakistan, Basic Democracies, Social Welfare and Local Government Depart ment, to which post he was appointed on 2‑2‑60 on selection by the Public Service Commission. He did not have a smooth sailing and was issued a charge‑sheet alongwith a show‑cause notice on 20‑11‑61 leading to an enquiry which culminated in his removal from service with effect from 31‑5‑63 by an order of the Commissioner Karachi Division dated 14‑5‑

63. Having failed before the High Court which dismissed his Writ Petition No. 404 of 1963 the petitioner succeeded before the Supreme Court vide judgment of this Court dated 23‑2‑1965 reported as Captain Muhammad Azhar v. Commissioner of Karachi and another (PLD1966SC253). It was held that the removal of the petitioner was without jurisdiction and of no legal effect against him. Although the validity of the enquiry was upheld by the Supreme Court, the order of removal was set aside on the ground that the Commissioner did not have the requisite jurisdiction to pass the same. Consequently the petitioner was re‑instated by the Governor of West Pakistan vide order dated 30‑9‑1965 with effect from 31‑5‑1963 the date of his removal and his services were placed at the disposal of the Commissioner, Kalat Division. On 13‑12‑1966 the petitioner was again telegraphically suspended. This order purported to have been made under Rule 11 of the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 was reaffirmed by a subsequent order dated 15‑7‑1967. He was allowed to draw the subsistence allowance equal to 1/3rd of his pay in addition to any other allowances permissible under the Rules. On the dissolution of the Province of West Pakistan, the petitioner though domiciled in Sind was allocated to the Province of Baluchistan. It appears that the Government of Baluchistan took exception to the propriety of his allocation and did not allow him to join till such time as a satisfactory clarification sought by it from the Punjab Government vide its letter dated 27‑8‑1971 was available. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1245‑S of 1971 which was dismissed vide order dated 8‑7‑1974, the subject‑matter of this petition for special leave to appeal. The petitioner argued his case quite at length :‑-- (i) His main contention was that the Lahore High Court did not have the jurisdiction to deal with and dispose of his writ petition and instead was under an obligation to refer his case to the President for transfer to a proper High Court under Paragraph 1.4 (8) of the Province of West Pakistan (Dissolution) Order, 1970. This ground is untenable for the reason that having himself invoked the jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court the petitioner never questioned its com petency to deal with his case, and cannot be allowed to raise this point now. (ii) It was next contended that the action of the authorities was mala fide. This ground was taken by the petitioner before the High Court and was duly considered by the learned Judge who came to the conclusion that in fact it was the petitioner who had deliberately prolonged the proceedings having refused to appear before the authorities with the result that a public notice had to be issued to procure his attendance. While rejecting the contention the learned Judge in Chamber correctly relied on this Court's judgment Federation of Pakistan v. Saeed Ahmad Khan P L D 1974 S C 151 that allegations of mala fide though easy to level are difficult to prove and the onus lay heavily on the petitioner. (iii) Lastly it was contended that according to the relevant instructions issued by the Government no civil servant could be kept under suspension for more than 6 months and that there was no justifica tion to prolong the period of the petitioner's suspension indefinitely without deciding his case one way or the other. There is lot of substance in this contention and while being clearly of the view that the order of the High Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity justifying the grant of leave to appeal we would readily endorse the observations made by the learned Judge in Chamber that the case of the petitioner which has been hanging fire for almost a decade should be finalised without further delay. It certainly brings no credit to the administration to deal with such cases in a slip‑shod and haphazard manner and allow them to linger on indefinitely. Therefore, while dismissing this petition we would direct that the petitioner's case may be finalised before the year 1974 is out. Petition dismissed.