1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Munir Ahmad Khan petitioner is accounts clerk, working in the office of Senior Accounts Officer, Telephone (Revenue), Department, Multan, and faces charges of misconduct, tempering with official record and embezzlement/corruption. He had allegedly misappropriated Government money to the tune of Rs.45,474.69. A departmental enquiry under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 was held against him. His dismissal from service was recommended. He unsuccessfully approached the Federal Service Tribunal; and then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The matter was, on 30‑11‑1992, remanded to the Federal Service Tribunal, for re‑hearing, whereupon the latter forum proceeded to hear the appeal of the accused official afresh, accepted it and set aside the order dated 2‑6‑1987, by which he had been removed from service. In consequence of the proceedings under 1973 Rules, it was directed that another officer would be appointed as an authorised officer in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court, as also the Tribunal. The disciplinary proceedings were ordered to be initiated within 30 days of the communication of the order dated 27‑1‑1993 of the Tribunal.

2. The official was reinstated, but placed under suspension, and the proceedings were ordered to be undertaken strictly in accordance with the rules. This was done by an order made on 27‑3‑1993, by the Director, Accounts, Office of the General Manager, Central Telephone Region, Lahore Main grievance of the accused official, who has filed this writ petition, is that the proceedings had not been initiated within the stipulated time i.e. 30 days. I has, however, not been stated anywhere, as to when had a copy of the judgment dated 27‑1‑1993 rendered by the Tribunal actually been received by this competent authority. Document annexed `B' discloses that it was despatched to the official on 18‑2‑1993. Commencement of the proceedings afresh within period of 30 days, however, did not appear to be the essence of the order, no could the same be taken to have caused to the official any measure grievance of substantial nature. He would have rushed to this Court, had h any real cause of grouse on that Court.

3. He was charge‑sheeted afresh on 10‑7‑1993; and he filed a reply to on 2‑8‑1993, although he was required to furnish such a reply within maximum period of 14 days. The Enquiry Officer found himself guilty of the charges levelled against him, vide report dated 9‑9‑1993, whereupon he w. served with a second show‑cause notice on 13‑9‑1993, as stipulated by the rule He had to reply to it within 14 days. Instead of doing so, he chose to approach this Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.

4. As already said, the main emphasis of the petitioner in assailing the legality of the proposed departmental action against him is initiation having n been made within the given time‑limit i.e. 30 days. This according to him, patently rendered the proceeding as barred by time and the same also small of mala fides on the part of the Authorities, who must have endeavoured to cook up and play up unfounded and false material against him. I do not think, this was possible, for he was made to face the same charges and no new charges. He had even made a `confessional' statement in the course of the earlier proceedings, which he has now described as a `stale' document, worthy of no credibility. According to the official, no reliance can also be placed on the documents, establishing embezzlement of Government of dues, which are available on record. There is, however, nothing in support of this plea. The mere assertion that protracted litigation had added to his agony would not vitiate the same.

5. As yet, no final order has been passed by the competent authority; and even when it is made, accused official will have a right to approach the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. When an alternative remedy and a proper forum are available to him, he cannot invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 199 of the Constitution. It is purely and clearly a service matter, which cannot be agitated before this Court. The writ petition is incompetent and is hereby dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M‑1232/L Petition dismissed.