2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Shan Gul for A.‑G. Through this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic Pakistan the impugned order dated 13‑8‑2001 whereby the petitioner was suspended from the service has been challenged and it has been prayed that it may be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is further prayed that respondent No.1 may also be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service and allow him to perform his official duties on the post he was working before suspension.

2. Brief facts necessitated for the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as TPO in LCS in 1993; that he was working as TPO, MC, Sheikhupura when an order dated 13‑8‑2001 (impugned herein) was issued by respondent No.1 whereby the petitioner alongwith 7 others was placed under Suspension and it was ordered that "the order of appointment of Enquiry Committee under section 5(1) of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 will follow"; that the said Enquiry Committee was appointed vide order dated 15‑8‑2001 to hold an enquiry it into the charges indicated in the preliminary report conducted by Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Saddozai, Director.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the inquiry has been ordered that some application was filed in 1991 for removal of encroachments to die Administrator which was marked to the subordinate staff but subsequently, the file was lost and the Secretary Government of Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development has directed to place under suspension the officers remained posted from 1992 to 2001 at the relevant place hence the petitioner has been placed under suspension without any reason through an arbitrary order. It is further contended that the order impugned is beyond the scope of law without pointing out any role of the petitioner and there is no allegation against the petitioner and suspension is not punishment. He relies on 2001 PLC (C.S.) 623 by which the Sindh High Court has set aside: the order of the suspension of the civil servant. It is further contended that the other questions the order is appealable before the Service Tribunal were also examined by the Karachi High Court as is laid down in 2001 PLC (C.S.) 1015 and even then the suspension order can be set aside by this is Court; and further relies upon the leave granting order of the Supreme Court, of Pakistan reported in 2000 PLC (C.S.)

533. It is further contended that the petitioner is not a civil servant, thus he has no other adequate and efficacious remedy as though he was declared civil servant under section 44 of the Local Government and Rural Development, 1979 which has beer repealed and yet no alternate provisions has been introduced under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance hence the petitioner is not a civil servant writ petition is maintainable.

4. Mr. Muhammad Shan Gul, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents s opposed this petition on the ground that the petitioner is a civil servant s he is dealing with the affairs of the Provincial Government and Article: 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan bars the jurisdiction this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. He relied upon the judgment of this Court passed by the Full Bench in Writ Petition No. 10758 of 2001 and also prays for the dismissal of this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is a civil servant under section 10 of the Ordinance and appeal can be filed by the employees of, the Corporation before the Service Tribunal after availing the remedy of r6vision before the authority. He also relied upon Khalid Mehmood's case 1998 SC MR 2240 and 1998 SCMR

999. It is further contended that suspension matter relates to terms and conditions of a civil servant and High Court is not proper place to decide the same.

5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing behalf of the writ petitioner has opposed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that the Punjab Local Government Board was an autonomous body not performing the functions of Stat and employees are not civil servant and appeal can only lie against the final order suspension order is not a final order.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on also perused the documents attached with this petition. Though petitioner's learned counsel has relied upon two judgments of the Karachi High court in which the suspension orders have been interfered with yet under the Punjab Removal of Service Order, 2000 section 10 is applicable to the employees of the Corporation of the Punjab Government and they can file an appeal before the Service Tribunal if the action is taken under the Punjab Removal from Service Ordinance, 2000 against the servants of such corporation hence Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan) applies in the case of the petitioner as well as by virtue of section 4 of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance a person employed of a Corporation Service by virtue of clauses (d) and (o)' of section 2 of the Ordinance is a Civil Servant. As the petitioner is also' an employee of the Corporation, due to the abovesaid clause he is a civil servant for the purpose of filing an appeal if any final order is passed against him duel to the inquiry which has been initiated and due to the action of placing him under suspension. I am fortified by the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 10758 of 2001 in which I was also a Member and am bound by the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court. There is a bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan for entertaining such petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution. The matters relating to the employees of the Corporation as defined in Punjab Removal from Service portion is reproduced hereunder: As tar as the applicability of bar of Article 212 of the Constitution to the cases of employees of Corporations of the Punjab Government is concerned we are of the view that in their cases well the bar jurisdiction applies for the reason that by virtue o section 10 of Ordinance IV of 2000 a right of appeal has been provided to an employee of a Corporation of the Punjab Government against any final order passed under the provisions of Ordinance IV of 2000. Therefore, jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal stands enlarged and extends to the grievances of the servants of the Corporations of the Punjab Government. Consequently, they shall be deemed to civil servants for the purposes of Punjab Service Tribunal Act, and therefore, in our view no separate declaration either in the Civil Servants Act or the Punjab Service Tribunal ct was required t be made. " I have also noticed that the earlier Writ Petition No. 15229 of 200 was filed by the petitioner for the decision on the same subject and it was disposed of by this Court by directing the respondent No.1 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner and 2nd writ petition on the same subject is not maintainable as C.P.C. applies according to the case cited reported in PLD 1970 SC

1. The writ petition is also not maintainable due to this reason as well and there is no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as even during suspension the petitioner is receiving the full pay and the allowances. The suspension order or the holding of inquiry is step towards passing of a final order and no writ petition is maintainable against interim order. As of the inquiry the petitioner is found guilty of the charge and thereupon some action is taken against him, the petitions has the remedy to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The High Court cannot interfere in such‑like interim orders in view of dictum laid down by the Karachi High Court in Abdul Bari's case (PLD 1981 Karachi 290, 303 and 309), Muhammad Mahmood Ali's case (1984 CLC .142 at page 145) and Nazir Ahmad Sheikh's case (1998 PLC (C.S.) page 607). In the light of the above discussion the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./M/1033‑L Petition dismissed.