CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:- "It is prayed that:-
(a) A declaration may be issued to the effect that the order of the third de novo departmental inquiry to the effect that the order dated 9.12.2003 (Annexure-B) issued by respondent No.1 is against the law, illegal, capricious, mala fide issued due to undue pressure and influence.
(b) The inquiry report dated 5.6.2004 of the respondent No. 2 is based on mala fide, a result of victimization and completely illegal, hence, unlawful and against the norms of justice and fair play, therefore, may be ordered to be set aside.
(c) It is further prayed that respondent No.1 may kindly be directed not to remove, terminate, dismiss or otherwise pass any order adversely effecting the petitioner due to the mala fide intentions, victimization and by way of colourful exercise of powers.
(d) Ad-interim injunction may also be allowed to the extent that the respondents may kindly be directed not to pass any final order with regard to the present inquiry proceedings."
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the competent authority has initiated proceedings against the petitioner under (E & D) Rules and Inquiry Officer was also appointed by the competent authority and on the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer, the competent authority dropped the proceedings against the petitioner twice. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 has initiated de novo inquiry against the petitioner under the influence of one Naeem Monga. He further submits that respondents No. 2 is close friend of said Naeem Monga, who has enmity with the petitioner and a criminal case is also registered against the said person on the complaint of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has submitted an application before respondent No. 1 that he has no confidence over respondent No. 2 to hold inquiry against the petitioner on the ground that respondent No. 2 has close relations with the said Naeem Monga. He further submits that action of the respondents is not in consonance with mandatory provisions of Punjab E&D Rules, 1975 and Punjab (E&D) Rules, 1999 specially Rule 7. He further submits that the petitioner submitted an application before respondent No. 1 for transfer of the Inquiry Officer, who did not decide the same. He further submits that during the pendency of the application, the petitioner approached respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 has submitted his recommendations against the petitioner for major penalty and respondent No. 2 has initiated proceedings against the petitioner mala fide respondent No. 1 has also issued show-cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
3. The learned law officer entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that the writ petition is not maintainable.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is admitted fact that the petitioner is a civil servant and matter pertains to the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner. This Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution read with Section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act. Article 212 of the Constitution has been interpreted by the Full Bench of Karachi High Court in the year 1981 and held that this Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance relying upon dictum laid down by the. Honourable Supreme Court in "Muhammad Yameen's case (PLD 1980 S.C. 22). The Full Bench of this Court has also followed the Full Bench of Karachi High Court and dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid Muhammad Yameen's case. Therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable in view of law laid down by the Superior Courts in the following judgments:- "Abdul Bari Vs. Government of Pakistan, and 2 others" (PLD 1981 Karachi 290), Muhammad Yameen Vs. Islamic Republic of Pakistan" (PLD 1980 SC 22) "Muzaffar Hussain Vs. Superintendent of Police Sialkof (PLD 1980 SC 22) (2002 P.L.C.(C.S) 442)
It is also settled principle of law that the Constitutional petition is not maintainable qua the intermediate stages, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Abdul Wahab Khan Vs. Government of Punjab, etc." (PLD 1989 S.C. 508). it is also admitted fact as alleged by the petitioner that the competent authority has issued show- cause notice to him in view of the report submitted by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1. it is also settled principle of law that the Constitutional petition is not maintainable against the show-cause notice/charge-sheet. in arriving to this conclusion, I am forfeited by the by the law laid down by the following judgments- "Muhammad Fayyaz's case" (N.L.R.1994 Service 30), "National Re-rolling Steel Mills's case" (1968 SC MR 317(2)' "Warasat's case" (1969 SCMR 154), Mehmood Ali's case" (1984, C.L.C 142), "Mst. Shagufta Begum's case (PLD 1989 S.C. 360). "Mir Nabi Bakhsh Khosa's case (2000 SCMR 1017).
In view of what has been discussed above, the Constitutional petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.