This Intra Court Appeal seeks to challenge an order of the Hon'ble Judge in Chamber dated 5.5.2009 in W.P. No, 1563/2009 re: Muhammad Waleed Khan V. Administrator, Market Committee, Jampur District Rajanpur etc.
2. The impugned order in extenso reads as under:-- "After arguing the petition at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to Respondents No, 1 and 5 Administrator, Market Committee and Secretary, Market Committee, respectively, to dispose of the application/representation dated 9.2.2009 filed by the petitioner without any further loss of time.
However, prays that till the disposal of said representation, the operation of the transfer order dated 7.2.2009 and suspension order dated 9.2.2009 may be suspended in the interest of justice.
2. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to Respondents No, 1 & 5 Administrator, Market Committee and Secretary, Market Committee, respectively to dispose of the application/representation of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of fortnight, under intimation to the D.R.(Judl) of this Court. Till then the operation of the transfer order dated 7.22009 & suspension order dated 9.2.2009 shall remain suspended."
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the representation/application dated 9.2.2009 was neither filed nor pending decision before the concerned authorities as alleged in the petition and referred to in the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge. It is further stated that the petitioner having an alternate remedy available to him in service matter, the Constitutional petition was otherwise not maintainable.
4. Be that it may no Constitutional petition against the impugned order dated 5.5.2009 was maintainable under which the Administrative Market Committee, Jampur suspended the present Respondent No, 1 till the finalization of inquiry under Section 6 of the Punjab Employees, Efficiency Discipline & Accountability Act, 2006. The allegation of the present Respondent No, 1 that the impugned order was motivated and mala fide could not be taken into consideration in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The reasons and causes for issuance of the impugned order alleging inefficiency, corruption, financial irregularities and embezzlement, as stated in the impugned letter being purely of factual nature, no Constitutional petition on the subject could possibly be made. We are also in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that in absence of any prayer for suspension of order of transfer its grant was otherwise not available for the Respondent No, 1.
5. Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Judge in Chamber is set aside with the direction to the appellant to complete the inquiry proceedings against Respondent No, 1 within the period stipulated by law.