1. ' RAFIULLAH SULTANI, J.---This writ petition is addressed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974.
2. ' Brief facts giving rise to instant writ petition, as alleged, are that petitioner is permanent employee of National Bank of Pakistan and is working as a Grade III Officer and was deputed on the cash desk in Kahuta Branch of the Bank from the year 2008 to 22nd August, 2009. It is alleged that certain officials of the Bank were involved to commit the acts of fraud and forgery to divert the public money into their personal accounts. The petitioner brought it into the notice of the higher authorities of the Bank; however, no response was given by them. Later on, upon the complaint of the petitioner, only few of the officials of the bank who were involved in the acts of fraud and forgery were served with show-cause notices but no proceeding has been taken against them because of their personal relations with some of the high officials of the regional management team of the Bank. The said officials have become inimical towards the petitioner on account of complaint. The aforesaid officials of the Bank who are influential and have political back with the collusion of higher administration of the Bank to force the petitioner to sign on already written non- judicial stamp papers bearing confessional statement to the effect that the said acts of fraud and forgery were committed by him and the said officials were innocent in this regard. The petitioner refused to sign because those were false and against the facts. After failing in their attempt, the said officials of the Bank manoeuvred to get the transfer of the petitioner from Kahuta Branch to Regional Office Muzaffarabad on 22nd August, 2009. The petitioner submitted his joining report in pursuance of transfer order at Regional Office Muzaffarabad. The petitioner was suspended from service of the Bank on 24th of August without serving any show-cause notice. After the suspension of the petitioner, the said officials manoeuvred to be conducted an enquiry wherein the petitioner was neither associated nor informed in any way. The said inquiry was conducted by Muhammad Alam AVP and Kh. Ishtiaq Ahmed AVP NBP jointly. The nomination of these officials was preplanned because Kh. Muhammad Tariq, Director Food, is the real elder brother of Kh. Ishtiaq Ahmed while Muhammad Alam is real cousin of Younis Qureshi who is Deputy Director of Food Department and all the illegalities rather the acts of embezzlement, fraud and forgery pertain to the transaction of the Food Department as such the said officials were deputed to cover the wrong deeds of the culprits and to trap the petitioner instead thereof. It is alleged that amongst others; one of the fraud and forgery which was committed by the administration of the local branch of the Bank in collusion with the officials of the Food Department was that the actual proceedings of the sale which were to be remitted to the account of the Food Department at Satellite Town Branch of the Bank at Rawalpindi through mail transfer on the last date of every month were not taken actually into the account of the local branch of Kahuta in total, rather handsome amount therefrom was misappropriated by the officials of Food Department as well as the Bank officials namely Syed Muhammad Asghar, Manager, Muhammad Sharif Khan, Second Officer, Sultan Mehmood Rathore, KPO, Muhammad Anwar Khan, Cash Incharge, Muzafar Abbasi, Second Officer and Muhammad Liaqat Khan, KPO. Muhammad Munir Khan, who was transferred from Bagh Branch to Kahuta Branch in the year 2009, joined the management staff later on. The above-mentioned unlawful practice continued by the said officials quite against the interest of the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir as well as the NBP while the embezzled amount was jointly misappropriated by them. Later on, the said officials to save their skin, with the collusion of administration of Bank has now got a case registered before respondent No,1 under the fictitious charges alleging that the petitioner is involved in acts of forgery despite the fact that he is quite innocent. If the petitioner is arrested under the false allegation, the said officials shall be at liberty to conceal the evidence of the commission of unlawful acts. Respondent No,1 is bound under law to investigate the matter impartially with regard to the embezzlement of public money, officers mentioned above and abstain from holding the petitioner responsible for such acts. In prayer clause a direction is sought against the respondents to make an impartial investigation in respect of the acts of the fraud and forgery which have been mentioned above to be made by some impartial officer of respondent No, 1 and to conduct inquiry against the petitioner which has been earlier initiated and to pass any ex parte order including the order of the removal of the petitioner from service of the Bank. A further direction is sought that enquiry conducted by the Bank officials against the petitioner be declared null and void and quashed accordingly and respondents 2 to 6 to arrange a fair and transparent enquiry. The respondent may also be restrained forever to fabricate any false case of misconduct or wrongful involvement of the petitioner in any such case without pre-appraisal of the Court for its satisfaction and without informing the petitioner in respect of the nature of the allegations and suspecting him to be involved into. On 8-1-2010, status quo order was issued on the application for interim relief till 18-1-2010 which was not extended on the said date of hearing. Parawise comments, have been submitted by respondent No, 1 in which allegations levelled in writ petition were denied.
3. Partly arguments heard on status quo application as well as on writ petition on 2-2-2010 and the case was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner for 3-2-2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not argued the case on said date and later on submitted written arguments on 10-2-2010 which have been Placed on the record.
4. ' I have heard the learned counsel for respondent No, 1 and gone through the written arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the record of the case before me. The petitioner has claimed the relief in prayer clause of the writ petition, which reads as under:-- "It is therefore, prayed that by accepting the instant petition an appropriate writ may be issued directing the respondent to make an impartial investigation into the acts of the fraud and forgery referred to above and numerous other acts which can be detected and found out through proper annuity/investigation to be made by some impartial officer of respondent No, 1 as far as the criminal involvement of the said officials are concerned and also by some impartial officer from Head Office of the National Bank who can resist all types of temptations and pressures eailier used very successfully by the above-referred delinquent officials in the matter of the concealment of the facts and the evidence of their malpractice. The respondents Nos. 2 to 6 be directed and bound down not to conclude the ex parte enquiry initiated on the choice of the referred officials of the NBP who are in fact involved in acts of extreme misconduct and misappropriation of the public money, or pass any other order of any kind against the petitioner in the matter of terms and conditions of his service.
5. ' The dummy enquiry conducted at the back of the petitioner be declared to be null and void and ineffective as far as his rights of the petitioner are concerned and quashed accordingly and the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 be directed to arrange a transparent and fair enquiry by some impartial Enquiry Officer, if at all any genuine allegation is sought to be probed into.
6. ' The respondent may also be restrained forever to fabricate any false case of misconduct or wrongly involved the petitioner in any such case without reappraisal of the Court for its satisfaction and without informing the petitioner about the nature of the allegation the respondents are suspecting the petitioner to have been involved into.
7. ' Any other relief to which the petitioner is deemed to be entitled to (sic) of the facts stated above may also be granted to him very graciously."
8. Petitioner is seeking above-mentioned relief under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. One of the conditions for grant of relief under aforesaid section to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court is that the petitioner before it should not have any alternate adequate remedy. The petitioner has already availed an opportunity of pre-arrest bail from Ehtesab Court Muzaffarabad which has not been yet adjudicated. The Ehtesab Bureau is an impartial institution of the State which is headed by its Chairman who is serving Judge of this Court. The Ehtesab Bureau is investigating the matter impartially and question of discrimination or favouritism does not arise in prevailing situation. The investigation is still under way by Ehtesab Bureau and no final verdict has been given against the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to join the investigation and prove his innocence while furnishing valid explanations with regard to allegations levelled against him in impugned criminal case. The petitioner is suspended from the service of Bank by administration of the Bank on 24-9-2008 and an enquiry has already been conducted against him in which he is declared guilty by the (sic) committee annual audit report prepared by audit committee of Bank does not support the version of the petitioner. All the aforesaid questions are controverted questions of facts; such a question cannot be resolved in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. It is pertinent to note that jurisdiction of this Court is confined to issue direction of matters of law and cannot make any executive order. Writ jurisdiction can be' exercised only where a public functionary has failed to perform his duty which required from him to be done under law or where he has done something against the law which was not permitted by law to do so. This Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction in those cases and issue direction to State organs to do something which is their duty or restrain them from doing that which they are not permitted by law. The investigation and enquiries are still under way by concerned authorities and allegation of process of power need detailed examination whether or not concerned authorities acted in accordance with the powers conferred on them by the statute. I am of the view that without pre-judging the matter on facts, the petitioner is directed to seek his remedy before the concerned competent authority. Constitutional petition in such a subject is not in any case competent; therefore, it is dismissed in limine. Status quo order, if issued, stands vacated. ' in limine.