' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.-Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 it is prayed that: "appropriate order may be issued to the respondents to take immediate departmental action against respondent No,1 on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer/Director Enquiry Wing of Central Board of Revenue and the Chairman C.B.R. Be further directed to charge- sheet him in accordance with law by quashing his refusal to issue the charge-sheet and further F.I.A. May be directed to register a criminal case for misappropriation/embezzlement of a sum of Rs,2,11,669 and to further probe the receipt of cores of rupees by respondent No,1 by becoming a fake informer as ABC and take action according to law; Collector respondent No,6 be directed to pay the amount of reward in accordance with Reward Scheme equal to two years' salary to the petitioner."
' The case of the petitioner is that being one of the members of the Detecting Team as Inspector, Sales Tax he was also entitled to the share of reward which was denied to him due to the alleged abuse of official position by respondent No,1 who allegedly made an entry "Mr. ABC C/o Deputy Collector Central Excise and Sales Tax (South) Lahore" and, thus, he himself became informer.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that not only that reward was denied to the petitioner, no action was taken against respondent No, 1 . Qua the report and para wise comments filed by the Deputy Collector (HQ) Sales Tax & Central Excise, Lahore on behalf of the other respondents exception is being taken that he could not have done so. The learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.1 to 4 and 6, however, states that the comments were filed by the latter with the approval and authority of the respondents and contents thereof are even owned by them till date.
He has assailed the locus standi of the petitioner for filing such a petition and contends that the prayer made by the petitioner who had been removed from service cannot be granted as the whole purpose was to deflect the course of the disciplinary proceedings. It is contended that the matter examined by the Central Board of Revenue and it has been found as a fact that the allegations made by the petitioner against respondent No,1 were worthless and baseless. It is further contended that the name of the informer is always shown in the contravention/Seizure cases with their code names i,e, ABC etc. To maintain secrecy and that since the "information was through respondent No,1, therefore, the reward had to be paid to the informer through him".
3. So far as the assertion of the petitioner as to his entitlement to the reward is concerned, the allegations were probed on his complaints/representations and on consideration of the mattet it was found that he was not entitled to any such reward. The reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner upon letter dated 30-8-1994 issued "for Collector" is misplaced. The assertion resting upon the same that the petitioner had been "ignored without assigning any reason" loses its efficacy as the same was indeed cancelled/withdrawn on 22-4-1997 for the reason that it had been found to have been issued "without lawful authority" and that it was "based on misrepresentation of facts". Reference thus made to Mst. Fazal Bibi and others v. Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1983 SC 163) and H.M. Fazil Zaheer v. Kh. Abdul Hameed and others (1983 SCM R 906) is also inapt in view of the later precedent on the point i,e, The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others (PLD 1975 SC 331).
4. There is also substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain such a petition, seeking direction for departmental action against respondent No,1, as it is a matter purely between the employer and the employee.
The said respondent as per stance in the comments is an honest officer and the allegations leveled against him were baseless and malicious to damage his reputation. Be that as it may, the Central Board of Revenue being the competent authority possessed of the relevant record/dossier of respondent No,1 has if on consideration of the matter chosen not to take any action against respondent No,1, the court is not in a position to substitute its view on the basis of mere allegations of the petitioner. It needs no reiteration that this court in writ jurisdiction can neither hold roving inquiry nor act as an inquisitorial forum.
' In view of the above, the petition I dismissed. No order a to costs.