1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The two Writ Petitions Nos. 5703 of 1996 filed by Muhammad Ashraf and No. 5704 of 1996 filed by Robert Bruce respectively will be disposed of by this joint order as the same question is involved out of the same order passed by the respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioners through these petitions seek direction that the operation of impugned order dated 12‑3‑1996 passed by respondent No. 2 in pursuance of instructions issued by respondent No. 3 be suspended and the respondents be prohibited and restrained from proceeding further under section 17(1‑A) of WAPDA Act, 1958.

3. Briefly facts as narrated in the petitions are that a meeting of the Member Power, Member Finance including respondent No. 2 and some other officers of the WAPDA was held on 5‑3‑1996 in the meeting room of WAPDA House, Lahore; at the conclusion of the meeting; the members of the said committee directed that the petitioners alongwith others be suspended and notices under section 17(1‑A) of WAPDA Act, 1958 be issued to the petitioner; in compliance with the direction the respondent No. 2 vide impugned letter dated 12‑3‑1996 ordered the suspension of the petitioners and intend to terminate the services of the petitioners under section 17(1‑A) of WAPDA Act, 1958; hence these petitions.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents at the very outset raised preliminary objection that the writ petitions are premature as no final orders has yet been passed against the petitioners and the petitioners being employees of WAPDA are civil servants by virtue of section 17(1‑A) of WAPDA Act and the Federal Service 'tribunal has got the exclusive jurisdiction to try the cases of the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners conversely controverted the arguments of the learned counsel by contending that the respondent No. 2 being the competent Authority did not apply his conscious mind and suspended the petitioners at the direction of authority superior to him; the suspension orders being passed without service of charge‑sheet are liable to be suspended; as the orders are ab initio illegal and void, hence writ petitions are competent.

6. The question of maintainability to the Constitutional petitions needs a little closer examination and necessity to evaluate the petitioners submissions on merits would arise only if the doctrine of alternate remedy is not available. Under Article 199 of the Constitution, the High Court is empowered to issue a writ, if as borne out from sub‑Article (1) "It is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law"; as observed by their lordships of Supreme Court in case Adamjee Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 5 others 1993 SCMR 1798); that sub‑Article (1) confers on the High Court a discretion of fairly wide amplitude but at the same time it imposes a responsibility on the High Court to exercise the discretion with circumspections. The satisfaction of the High Court envisaged by sub‑Article (1) that no other adequate remedy provided in law is available to the aggrieved party, is condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199.

7. The contention of the learned counsel that the respondent No. 2 did not apply his mind while issuing the impugned order is misconceived as he was present in the meeting and had placed the record of area under his jurisdiction; the names of petitioners in the list those who were recommended to keep under suspension for losses; was in fact had his approval for suspension of the petitioners.

8. It is difficult to agree to the learned counsel and dub the impugned order as without jurisdiction; want of jurisdiction in a Tribunal is usually discredited as unlawful usurpation of power; but such does not appear to be the case here. The WAPDA Authority is competent to take cognizance of line losses and decision to place the petitioners under suspension and issue notices under section 17(1‑A) of WAPDA Act, 1958. The apprehension of the petitioners that their services would be terminated without complying with the procedure does not hold field as an exhaustive procedure has been laid down for application of section 17(1‑A) of WAPDA Act; even otherwise WAPDA Act is a complete code; the petitioners have a right to reply to the show‑cause notice and the respondents are under legal obligation to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners to prove their innocence.

9. The WAPDA Authority has initiated proceedings against the respondents for their misconduct by keeping them under suspension; the petitioners have options to invoke the remedies provided for under the relevant statute; they cannot at their sweet‑will switch over to Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in the mid of proceedings in the absence of any compelling and justifiable reasons; without judging the issues; the petitioners are directed to seek their remedy from Authority in accordance with law; Constitutional petitions on a subject which is still immature is not: in any case competent. I do not find any merits in these petitions and the same are dismissed. A.A./M‑141/L Petitions dismissed.