' The petitioner has challenged the vires of the order of respondents, dated 9-3-1998 through this Constitutional petition whereby the District Public Instructions was appointed by the respondents as authorized officer in accordance with Rules 6 and 7-A of the Punjab Civil Servants, Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the respondents did not provide sufficient material to the authorized officer. The authorized officer has not issued the charge-sheet to the petitioner till date. The case of the petitioner was not placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee in view of the proceedings pending before the respondents against the petitioner under Punjab Civil Servants, Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. He further submits that the proceedings under Rule 7-C of the Punjab Civil Servants, Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 must be finalized by the authorized officer within a period of 45 days from the date of the direction and report to that effect be submitted to the authority or in case the authorized officer has decided to appoint an inquiry officer or inquiry committee even then he should ensure that the inquiry proceedings are completed within a period of 90 days from th; date of receipt of the direction under Rule 5 and shall submit report thereof to the authority. He further submits that the petitioner is penalized by the inaction of the respondents. He further submits that the action of the respondents is not in accordance with the law. In support of his contentions, he relied upon Ch. Yar Muhammad Durraiana v. Government of the Punjab (1992 PLC (C.S.) 95.
3. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate-General entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that the writ petition is not maintainable.
' I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
' It is admitted fact that the petitioner is a civil servant. The matter pertains to the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable qua the order dated 19-3-1998 as per law laid down 'by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- ' M. Yamin Qureshi (PLD 1980 SC 22); Abdul Bari's case (PLD 1981 Kar. 290) and Muzaffar Hussain's case (2000 PLC (C.S.) 442.
' It is also settled principle of law that writ petition qua the intermediate stages with regard to the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner is not maintainable as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Abdul Wahab's case (PLD 1989 SC 508). It is also settled principle of law that the public functionaries are duty bound to act in 'accordance with law as is envisaged by Article. 4 of the Constitution. It is also settled principle of law that Constitution is a social binding contract between the following tiers of the society:--
(i) Executive.
(ii) Legislature.
(iii) Judiciary.
(iv) Citizens.
' It is also the command of the Constitution that each and every aforesaid tyre of the society must obey the command of the Constitution as is envisaged by Article 5(2) of the Constitution. Even the Chief Executive of the country is not above the Constitution as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ch. Zahoor Elahi's case (PLD 1975 SC 383). After addition of section 24-A in the General Clauses Act, respondents/public functionaries are duty bound to decide the controversy of their subordinates with reasons within reasonable time as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of M/s Airport Support Service v. The Airport Manager, Karachi (1998 SCMR 2268). It is also settled principle of law that no body should be penalized by the in action of the public functionaries as per principle laid down by this Court in Ahmed Latif Qureshi's case (PLD 1994 Lahore 3). In spite of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, this Court has ample jurisdiction to give the direction to the public functionaries to act in accordance with law by virtue of Article 4 of the Constitution read with Article 199 of the Constitution as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in H.M. Rizvi's case (PLD 1981 SC 612).
6. In view of what has been discussed above, let a copy of the writ petition be sent to respondent No,1 who is directed to finalize the case of the petitioner with regard to the Efficiency and Discipline Rules initiated against the petitioner by the respondents vide order dated 19-3-1998 in terms of the Rule 7.-C of the Punjab Civil Servants, Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. Petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No,1 in his office at 11.00 a.m. On 21-5-2003 who is directed to give directions to the competent authority to finalize the matter positively within two months after receiving the order of this Court. He is further directed to submit report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the stipulated period. The learned counsel of the Petitioner is directed to hand over copy of the writ petition alongwith all the annexures to Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate-General, who is directed to send the same to respondent No,1 for necessary action and compliance. He is also directed to send copy of this order to the Chief Secretary of the Province who is directed to look into the matter what is happening in different departments of the Government qua non-finalization of disciplinary proceedings within the prescribed statutory period due to which public functionaries are not taking interest to discharge their statutory duties, resultantly, there is a loss of exchequer and inconvenience to public on account of non-action of the public functionaries on two counts i,e, (i) the person who is responsible for not finalizing the matter within the prescribed period. (ii) the person against whom the Efficiency and Discipline Rules has been initiated but not finalized, who is not taking interest in his jon and discharge statutory duties in spite of the fact that he receives salary from the public exchequer. He is directed to give directions to all the concerned Secretaries and his subordinates so that the proceeding sinitiated by the competent authoirty against their subordinates must be finalized within the prescribed statutory period. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar Judicial of this Court.
' With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.