MUSHTAK ALI KAZI, J.-The petitioner is posed as a Senior Civil Judge in Karachi. The Acting Chief Justice, High Court of Sind, Karachi received a complaint from Secretary to Government, Home Department, dated Decem--ber 28, 1976 regarding misconduct of the petitioner in the course of performance of the judicial functions and requested for necessary disciplinary action. The cases in question were scrutinized and in respect of two such cases show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner by the Acting Chief Justice as authorised officer under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The allegation with regard to the first charge was that the petitioner had admitted a suit in which the property involved was more than Rs. 3,20,000 and the property in question consisting of readymade garments was ordered to be delivered to the plaintiff. In the other charge the allegations were that an execution application in respect of decree for ejectment from residential house was ante-dated straightaway the occupants were got evicted with police aid with the result that the ladies residing in the house had to be put to the street without any notice.
2. The Acting Chief Justice after hearing the petitioner decided that it was not necessary to have an enquiry conducted through enquiry officer as this could be dispensed with under rule 5(2) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. He accordingly made a reference to the Authority concerned recommending the petitioner's services to be terminated. Before any action could be taken by the Authority, that is, Martial Law Administrator, Zone C, the petitioner has moved this Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution praying that the action taken against him in pursuance of the show-cause notice was without lawful authority and for a direction restraining the Authority from terminating his services or imposing any penalty on him.
3. It has first been urged by Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque that under the notification of the Government of Sind dated 19th September, 1974 Chief Justice of High Court of Sind & Baluchistan was appointed to be an authorised officer in respect of disciplinary action under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 In place of Chief Secretary and Law Secretary. Mr. Khalid Ishaque has accordingly argued that the Chief Justice had been appointed authorised officer as persona designate. That since the Chief Justice continued to be there though he was acting as the Governor, he alone could issue show-cause notice to the petitioner. The Acting Chief Justice was, however, duly appointed as such by the President to perform the duties and functions of the Chief Justice under the Constitution during the temporary absence of the Chief Justice who was required to act the Governor. The notification mentioned the authorised officer as Chief Justice instead of the Chief Secretary and Law Secretary and there was no nomination of any person by name.
Acting Chief Justice could, therefore, perform the duties and func--tions of the office of the Chief Justice including his duties as an authorised officer for the purpose of the said rules, as, under Article 260 of the Constitu--tion, "Chief Justice, in relation to the Supreme Court or a High Court, includes the Judge for the time being acting as Chief Justice of the Court".
4. It has then been argued that the Chief Justice ought to have conducted a regular enquiry through an enquiry officer and allowed the petitioner full opportunity to defend himself. The Acting Chief Justice has, however, acted in accordance with the rules and procedure laid down in the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 and he did not consider it proper to have an enquiry officer appointed to conduct an enquiry in a case of this nature.
5. In any case under the Sind Services Tribunals Act, 1973 as administra--tive Court, namely, the Service Tribunal, has been established for dealing with such matters and under section 3 (3) the Tribunal shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of Civil Servants including disciplinary matters. Under Article 212 of the Consti--tution the Administrative Court or tribunal so established shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of persons in service of Pakistan including disciplinary matters.
6. It has been argued by Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque that the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere only after final orders have been passed. The petitioner has, however, moved this Court at an earlier stage and since the Services Tribunal cannot entertain any such petition for the present the High Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the Constitutional petition. The High Court, however, will not exercise its discretion in entertaining such petition if the idea is to circumvent the law. Where special administrative Courts have been provided under special law dealing with service matters then the Special Court alone should be permitted to exercise jurisdiction in respect of such matters and the regular Courts should for that matter keep their hands off specially when the Administrative Tribunal has been given exclusive jurisdiction under the Act as well as under the Constitution. At present no final order or for that matter no effective order has been passed requiring interference by the High Court. This petition would even on that ground, appear to be premature. The question of termination of service or imposition of any other penalty is yet to be decided by the Authority and if any action adverse to the petitioner is taken, then alone the petitioner could have a cause of action for seeking redress in the prescribed manner. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.