' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.--- The petitioner, through this constitutional petition, calls in question the order, dated 17-1-2000, whereby, he was terminated from services, which decision was affirmed by appellate order.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of this constitutional petition are that the petitioner, while working as Junior Clerk in the Computer Section of the Examination Branch of the University of the Punjab, was proceeded against under the Punjab University Employees Efficiency and Discipline Statutes, 1975 on the allegation that "you have been found guilty of wrongly tabulating the result and making bogus award lists of Roll No,22078 and 16017 of B.A. Second Annual Examination, 1995 with the help and connivance of other employees. You forged the result and declared the candidates to have passed the examination in which they were failing". According to the charge- sheet, the allegations if proved would constitute "forgery", "inefficiency" "misconduct and corruption".
3. In reply to the charge-sheet the petitioner denied the allegation and a request was made to the Authorized Officer to ask Dr.. Naveed A. Malik, Incharge, Computer Section to enlighten the Authorized Officer about the duties assigned to the petitioner. The Authorized Officer -himself conducted the inquiry and according to his finding the forged result cards were issued by the petitioner from Computer Section on 28-4-1997 based on information led by Mr. Shahbaz Ahmad Khan, co-accused and delivered to the Examination Branch through Mr. Mumtaz Ahmad Khan, Junior Clerk, Examination Branch. These cards were treated as lost and case was initiated for issuance of duplicate result cards. It was further held that these results were processed by Mr. Shahbaz Ahmad Khan. He had entertained bogus re-checking award lists. As far as the petitioner is concerned, it was held that he issued the duplicate result cards without proper legal authority to support the corruption. Accordingly, he recommended termination of the services, inter alia, of the petitioner. The competent authority heard the petitioner. The Deputy Registrar (Admn.-II), placed the recommendation of the Authorized Officer before the competent authority i,e, the Registrar. On 17-1-2000, the following order was passed.
"Recommendation of the Authorized Officer on page 113 is approved."
' The petitioner filed an appeal, before the Vic-Chancellor/Chairman of Syndicate, which was rejected, vide order, dated 22-1-2001. The petitioner aggrieved of the aforesaid orders preferred constitutional petition, which was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court on 10-4-2003 observing: "The question, which, however, attracted my attention, was as to the relief, which could be granted to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it will be just and appropriate if the appellate authority reconsiders the case of the petitioner.
Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed, the impugned appellate order is declared as without lawful authority with the result that the appeal of the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending before the appellate authority to be decided afresh in accordance with law with a speaking order".
4. The petitioner appeared before the Appellate Committee, but in spite of hearing it failed to pass any order, which constrained him to file Criminal Original No,1134-W of 2003. Under the order, dated 20-4-2004 of this Court the petitioner applied for copy of decision. He was informed that copy has been supplied to learned Legal Advisor and he may obtain from him. The decision rendered by the appellate authority was assailed in Writ Petition No,7720 of 2004. Comments were solicited.
Constitutional petition was disposed of on 3-4-2005 directing the respondent University to pass a speaking order in terms of order passed in Writ Petition No,2360 of 2001. Another Writ Petition No,13006 of 2005 was filed impugning decision rendered by the appellate authority on 1-7-2005.
This petition, too, was disposed of on 17-1-2006. Respondent University challenged. This order before the Honourable Supreme Court. Civil petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. However, while disposing of petition University was directed to decide appeal by a speaking order within 60 days. In consequence thereto the appellate authority has decided the appeal on 5-5-2006 which order is being assailed in this constitution petition on the grounds that neither Inquiry Officer was appointed nor Inquiry Committee was constituted to make factual inquiry into the guilt, hence the order is without jurisdiction; no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner against proposed penalty; the impugned order is lacking adherence to principle of natural justice; and that the Appellate committee made its decision on extraneous considerations. He relied on Muhammad Shoaib Roomi v. Secretary/Additional Secretary, Education Department Government of Punjab and others 2005 SCMR 605.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent University opposed the petition and sought support from the dictum laid down in University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Ch. Sardar All 1992 SCMR 1093 contending that the rules are non-statutory in nature, hence, constitutional petition cannot be entertained. He also relied on M.H. Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division Government of Pakistan Islamabad and 2 others 1994 SCMR 1024.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. I am conscious of the judgment rendered by my learned brother in the first round of litigation directing the respondent University to pass a speaking order. Objections were raised to the competency/ maintainability of the constitutional petition by the respondent which was overruled by relying on judgment passed by Delhi High. Court, that when statutory bodies framed the rules and regulation, notwithstanding their non-statutory character, constitutional petition can be directed. Judgments cited in the afore-noted case have distinguishable features.
8. The petitioner has been afforded opportunity of hearing. He associated himself with the inquiry proceedings. The appellate authority considered its case and rejected his departmental appeal.
The Honourable' Supreme Court in M.H. Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division Government of Pakistan Islamabad and 2 others 1994 SCMR 1024 held that constitutional petition is not maintainable when the authority was to determine the terms and conditions of its employee and Government has no say in the matter. None of its regulations whether framed by it itself or adopted by reference had statutory basis in law. Support to this view was sought from Ch. Abdul Rashid v. Capital Development Authority, Islamabad and another PLD 1979 Lah. 803 and Principal, Cadet College, Kohat and another v. Muhammad Shoaib Qureshi PLD 1984 SC 170 and the adoption of the rules of the Government or their application by reference will not lend a statutory cover to these rules, as held in Lahore Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. Saif Ullah Shah PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 210 and finally in Chairman, Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Islamabad and 3 others v. Dr. Mrs. Khalida. Razi (Civil Appeal No,270 of 1993). There being no statutory rules in the field; a constitutional petition was not at all competent on the subject.
' In Muhammad Shoaib Roomi v. Secretary/Additional Secretary, Education Department, Government of Punjab and others 2005 SCMR 605, it was held that Junior Clerk in the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Gujranwala was served with show-cause notice accompanied by statement of allegation, whereby the appellant accused was punished in slipshod and summary manner and thereby depriving him of his job, could not be sustained on principle of equity, just and fairplay.
8-A. Since the Honourable Supreme Court has already held that respondent is governed by non- statutory rules and its violation is not amenable to the constitutional. Jurisdiction of this Court, I have no hesitation but to dismiss this petition.
9. For what has been discussed above, this petition having no merit is dismissed.