' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J---By filing the instant writ petition, petitioner has sought a direction in the name's of the respondents to pay salaries to the petitioner w,e,f, 8-10-2001 to 2-6-2004 as directed by the Punjab Service Tribunal vide judgment dated 23-12-2002 and has A further challenged impugned show-cause notice/statement of allegations/inquiry letter, declaring the same to be illegal, null and void, against Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and violative of law.
2. It is contended by learned counsel that the petitioner was appointed as S.D.O. On 28-2-1983. He was served with a show-cause notice dated 26-4-2001, which was subsequently withdrawn. He was again served with another show cause notice dated 26-7-2001 by the Department levelling allegation against the petitioner that he got submitted some ACRs for the period mentioned as under:--
(i) 12-3-1988 to 17-7-1988.
(ii) 10-1-1994 to 31-12-1994
(iii) 1-1999 (sic) to 7-10-1999
(iv) 6-4-1995 to 31-12-1995 ' The said show-cause notice was replied by the petitioner with explanation and reference to the standing instructions for reporting of ACRs, The respondents, being unsatisfied with the reply, vide order dated 8-10-2001 passed order for compulsorily retirement of the petitioner. The departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected on 3-8-2002 by the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 8-10-2001 and 3-8-2002, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which was contested by the respondents and the Punjab Service Tribunal vide its judgment dated 23-12-2002 set aside the orders dated 8-10-2001 and 3-8- 2002 by holding that the petitioner could not be held responsible regarding tampering in the ACRs, which were in possession of respondent No,1 and reinstated the petitioner and accepted the appeal with the following observations:-- "The impugned ACR is adopted and department is re-verified. If needed new ACRs be got initiated from the reporting officer."
' The respondent department did not challenge the said judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The respondents did not implement the orders of the Punjab Service Tribunal; resulting thereby the petitioner filed W.P. No,836/2004 in this Court. In counter-blast respondents filed C.M. No,156/2004 before the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding verification of second observation, wherein the permission with regard to rewriting of ACRs was allowed by the Tribunal to the department. The said C.M. Was entertained vide order dated 28-4-2004 and it was observed as under:-- "We find that in accordance with the said judgment, the authority is at liberty to have the disputed/doubtful ACRs of the appellant recorded again from the same reporting officer".
' It was held by the Tribunal as under:-- "the previous ACRs which were allegedly forged by the appellant shall stand discarded. This being so, as the previous ACRs which will be discarded or considered doubtful, the department is at liberty to order an inquiry/investigation once again against the appellant, but after his reinstatement".
' It was held that respondents-department can proceed against the appellant/petitioner afresh and can get his disputed ACRs re-written from the concerned reporting officer. Being aggrieved of the clarification made by the Punjab Service Tribunal, petitioner challenged the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan which is still pending; the said order was challenged on the ground that no power of the review was available with the Tribunal.
3. The respondents were directed by this Court in Writ Petition No,836/2004 to implement the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal according to which the petitioner remained out of service w,e,f, 8-10- 2001 to 23-12-2002, which should be treated as leave of due kind. Respondent No,1 vide order dated 2-6-2004 implemented the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal partially to the extent of giving joining of the petitioner but no salaries for the period mentioned above was paid to the petitioner.
The respondents-department has failed to pay the salaries as per decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal. Instead of complying with the order respondent No,1 taking it as personal and posted the petitioner in Tehsil Rojhan, District Rajanpur, which is far flung area from his house. The respondents by not paying salaries as per judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal had deprived petitioner of his right of living as guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.
4. Conversely, learned A.A.-G appearing on behalf of the respondents raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition arguing that since the jurisdiction of this Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as the matter relates to the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner. Further submits that the instant writ petition is also barred in terms of Section 14-B of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance. Further submits that so far as the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal pertaining to payment of salaries of the petitioner, the department had also issued an order for treating the intervening period w,e,f, 9-10-2003 to 1-6-2004 in respect of the petitioner as leave of kind due. The petitioner was asked by the department to produce his leave entitlement certificate so that the salaries for intervening period in accordance with the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal may be made. As regards show-cause noticed dated 14-2-2005, which was issued after seeing clarification from the Punjab Service Tribunal and appointment of respondent No,2 as Inquiry Officer vide order dated 28-4-2004 to proceed against the petitioner afresh and could get his disputed ACRs re-written from the concerned reporting officer. Further submits that vide para. 3 of the order dated 28-4-2004 the ambiguity of the original order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 23-12-2002 has been clarified and the respondents-department has been authorized to issued afresh show-cause notice and proceed against the petitioner. Further states that issuance of show-cause notice and holding of inquiry as a result thereof cannot be called in question. The writ petition is not maintainable and jurisdiction of this Court is barred; hence, the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Punjab Service Tribunal.
5. I have given my profound considerations to the respective arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The preliminary objection of the learned Law Officer that the writ petition is not maintainable as this Court has no jurisdiction to give direction to the respondents to implement the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, has no force. In view of the law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments reported as Mrs. Monawar Sanni v.
Director Army Education (1991 SCMR 135), Inamul Haq v. Secretary Establishment Division (1982 Law Notes Lah. 437), Khalid Mehmood Inspector v. Inspector General Police (1999 PLC (C.S) 558), Sardar Muhammad Arshad v. Azad Government through Chief Secretary (1998 PLC (C.S.) 217), Farooq Ahmad Khan v. Shaukat Jan Bouch (1998 PLC (C.S.) 425), Qazi Muhammad Anwar v. Federation of Pakistan (PLC 2000 (C.S.) 1165), Fazal Elahi v. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. And another (2004 PLC (C.S.) 655) and Rana Muhammad Afzal v. Director Food Punjab, Lahore and others (2004 PLC (C.S.) 567), it is held that this Court has jurisdiction to direct the respondents to implement/comply with the order/direction issued by the Punjab Service Tribunal. To this extent, this constitutional petition is accepted and respondents are directed to implement the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal and pay the salaries to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
6. So far as the writ pertaining to declare the show-cause notice issued by the respondents to be illegal, null, void and violative of law, is not maintainable as the question pertains to the terms and conditions of the service, and the petitioner, if aggrieved of the said show-cause notice or by the decision of the inquiry, he may seek his remedy against the same by filing an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal.
' In the above terms, this writ petition is disposed of.