' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 20-10-2008 passed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petition No,10780 of 2008 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner along with seven other civil servants was recommended by the departmental authority for promotion to BS-19 but notification with regard to her promotion was withheld on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. It is pleaded that withholding of the notification of promotion was illegal. She therefore approached the Lahore High Court, Lahore by invoking the writ jurisdiction praying therein for directions to the respondent for issuance of the notification of her promotion.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the promotion could not be withheld on account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner has referred to the judgment reported as Mrs. Sanjida Irshad, Director Nursing EDO (Health), Bahawalpur v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Health Department, Lahore 2008 PLC (C.S.) 1019 in support of the petition.
4. We have anxiously considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and have also perused the above judgment.
5. The perusal of the record reveals that the recommendations of the departmental authorities vide memo. Dated 17-9-2007 in regard to promotion of the petitioner were not acted upon as the petitioner was allegedly involved in the act of misappropriation. The prima facie, evidence in respect of the allegations, levelled against the petitioner was found, to be available in a preliminary probe as such the decision was taken by the authorities to hold a regular inquiry. Resultantly competent authority appointed an enquiry officer to hold an enquiry against the petitioner under the Punjab Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability, Act, 2006 vide order dated 26-4-2008 which contained details of the charges. The memo. Of the writ petition itself discloses that an F.I.R. Under section 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2), 1947 of P.C.A. Was also registered against the petitioner.
Apparently there is no evidence of any act of discrimination, malice and/or breach of law/rules, except bald accusation of mala fide by the petitioner.
6. A perusal of the judgment of Lahore High Court, relied upon by learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, reveals that the same was based on two judgments of this Court. The facts contained in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gujranwala and others v. Anwar Saeed, Inspector Police and others 1998 SCMR 552 show that the petition of the Authorities was dismissed as the civil servant in the said case was not promoted even after being exonerated of the charges in the inquiry, which is not the case of the petitioner. In the case Maj. Ziaul Hassan, Home Secretary and others v. Mrs. Naseem Chaudhry 2000 SCMR 645 this Court allowed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the order of the Supreme Court was not complied with for the mere reason that certain disciplinary proceedings were pending against the civil servant.
7. The facts of the cases as referred in the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore are quite distinguishable and contrary to the facts and the circumstances of the case of the petitioner. The learned Lahore High Court, Lahore was quite justified in declining to issue a writ, under the circumstances of the case. Indeed the writ jurisdiction was not meant to be exercised to compel the competent authority to promote a civil servant against whom prima facie evidence showing her involvement in the serious charges of misconduct was available, for the reason that any such direction would be disharmonious to the principle of good governance and canon of service discipline. Rather causing undue interference to hamper smooth functioning of the departmental authorities.
8. For the above reasons, the order passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore being unexceptionable, warrants no interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.