' The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that respondent No.1 filed a complaint against the petitioner before Provincial Ombudsman, Punjab alleging various allegations qua misappropriation of the property and secured the land in question in his name, which was forwarded to the Department, there after the impugned order was passed by the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) on 10-1-2005. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this Constitutional petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the Provincial Ombudsman, Punjab has passed the impugned order dated 10-11-2004 against the petitioner without providing proper hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order of the Provincial Ombudsman, Punjab is hit by the principle of natural justice. He further submits that the petitioner has filed representation against the order of the Provincial Ombudsman, Punjab, before the Appellate Authority which is pending adjudication, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law as the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) has to wait the final result of representation filed by the petitioner against the order of Provincial Ombudsman, Punjab before the Appellate Authority, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law even on merit side. The petitioner has not misappropriated and misused power and secured property in his name or in the name of his relative, therefore, the petitioner has not committed any misconduct but this fact was not considered by the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) in the impugned order dated 10-1-2005.
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 learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has alternative remedy to file representation against the order of Provincial Ombudsman, Punjab before Appellate Authority, which the petitioner has filed, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable against the impugned order of Provincial Ombudsman, Punjab, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "WAPDA v.
Commissioner, Hazara Division." (1992 SCMR 2121). It is also admitted fact that the petitioner is a civil servant and matter pertains to the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable in view of Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, as per principle laid down by the Superior Courts in the following judgments:- "M. Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan" (PLD 1980 SC 22)
"Abdul Wahab Khan v. Government of Punjab and others (PLD 1989 SC 508)
"United Bank Ltd. v. Shamim Ahmad Khan and others (PLD 1999 SC 990)
"Muzaffar Hussain v. Superintendent of Police Sialkot" (2002 PLC (C. S.) 442..
' The petitioner as mentioned above even after retirement, remained civil servant and he has to avail alternative remedy before the Service Tribunal as held by this Court after considering all the cases-law on the subject as per principle laid down in "Abdul Aziz v. Special Secretary Education (School) Government of Punjab, Lahore." (2001 PLC (C.S.) 661). It is also admitted fact on the record that the petitioner has filed representation against the order of Provincial Ombudsman, which is pending adjudication. It is also settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character, therefore, it is a good ground not to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of representation before the competent authority, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Ch. Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky v. Province of East Pakistan and others." (PLD 1968 SC 185). Even other wise, I have examined the case and keeping in view the allegations levelled in the complaint and impugned order, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner, as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:- "Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Committee." (PLD 1973 SC 236).
"Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Addl. Commissioner and others (1998 SCMR 1462).
' It is also admitted fact that the petitioner has alternative remedy to agitate the matter before the higher authorities of the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Under Punjab Civil Servant Act read with rules (Efficiency and Discipline) and Punjab Service Pension Rule, 1963. As mentioned above, the petitioner remained civil servant even after retirement and thereafter, the petitioner has to avail alternative remedy before the Service Tribunal, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is not maintainable. However, the petitioner is well within his right to avail alternative remedy either before higher authorities of the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) or before the Service Tribunal. In case, the petitioner avails the aforesaid remedies, then the competent authority/Service Tribunal, of course, shall decide the same in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations of this Court.
' With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed of. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges.