1. ' MEHTA KAILASH NATH KOHLI, J.--- Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner was appointed in Education Department, in the year, 1986 and was working as Office Assistant in Government Inter- College, Soorab, District Kalat. It was stated that petitioner was served with show-cause notice, issued by Secretary Education Department Competent Authority (respondent No,1) on 14th October, 2003 on the allegations of drawing an amount of Rs,2,32,482 against bogus claims of salaries of three teachers, vide receipt dated 5th January, 2002. It was further stated that reply to the show- cause notice was submitted by the petitioner and he had denied the allegations alleged against him. Record shows that Secretary Education Department/Competent Authority, vide order dated 16th March, 2006, dismissed the petitioner from service by concluding in the following terms: "In view of the above, Mr. Khadim Hussain is proved to be guilty of gross misconduct and major penalty of removal from service is imposed upon him under section 3 of the Balochistan Province Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 with immediate effect. An amount of Rs,232,482 misappropriated is hereby ordered to be recovered from Mr. Khadim Hussain as arrears of land revenue."
2. ' Being aggrieved of afore-mentioned dismissal order, petitioner filed departmental appeal before the Secretary Education/ Competent Authority (respondent No,1), subsequently; petitioner deposited the alleged embezzled amount of Rs,2,32,482 in Government Treasury through Bank receipt. It was further stated that the said amount was received from the responsible officer of Education Department namely Javed Shamim. It was also stated that the Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan (respondent No,2) forwarded the departmental appeal to the Chief Minister, who had accepted the department appeal and the petitioner was allowed to be reinstated into service with immediate effect, vide order dated 11th December, 2006. It was case of the petitioner that the respondent No,2 was approached by the petitioner for final order in compliance of orders/directives of Chief Minister, but the respondent No,2 delayed the matter on one pretext or the other, hence; present petition has been filed and following prayer has been sought:--- "It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Honourable High Court may kindly be pleased to declare that order dated 16-3-2006 passed by respondent No,1 about dismissal of service of petitioner is illegal, unlawful, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
3. ' Further the respondent may be directed to reinstate and post the petitioner in the compliance with order of reinstatement passed by Chief Minister dated 11-12-2006."
4. ' Notice of this petition was given to the, other side. Parawise comments were filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2, wherein; legal objections were raised that; (a) this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition, as the matter pertains to the service and the petitioner should have approached the Balochistan Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance, therefore, the relief sought in the petition cannot be extended in favour of petitioner; (b) petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed; (c) the appeal is barred by time for the reason that the competent authority had considered the appeal of petitioner for reinstatement into Government service, which was rejected vide order dated 29th November, 2006; the petitioner was required to prefer appeal before the competent forum within a period of thirty days of the final order of the competent authority dated 8th January, 2007, but; the petitioner has preferred the present petition in July, 2007 after lapse of more than six months, even; no application for condonation of delay as provided under the Balochistan Civil Servant's Appeal Rules, 1977; (d) petitioner has no locus standi to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, as there are serious charges of embezzlement of huge Government amount against the petitioner, which were admittedly deposited by the petitioner, as such; the said allegations stood proved against him, thus; the present petition is liable to be dismissed. On merits also, the petition was contested and the claim of petitioner was denied. It was stated that reply to the show-cause notice submitted by the petitioner was unsatisfactory, and thus; the petitioner was removed from service under section 3 of the Balochistan Province, Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 with immediate effect on 16th March, 2006. It was further stated that the allegations were proved against the petitioner, because he had deposited the alleged embezzled amount in the Treasury vide challan dated 20th June, 2006, which means that he was guilty of his illegal acts committed by him. It has been stated that the petitioner had twicely attempted to obtain directives of the Chief Minister Balochistan by misleading the Chief Executive Offices, however; as per procedure and policy, summaries were moved to the competent authority for reinstatement and on both occasions the same were returned with the then Chief Minister's remarks recorded as 'Seen file', which is treated as rejected in view of convincing contents of the Education Department, contained in the said summaries proving the petitioner as guilty, hence; the petitioner is no more required in Government service. It was stated that the appeal of petitioner was duly considered by the competent authority and the same was accordingly rejected.
5. ' Mr. Manzoor Ahmed Rahmani, Advocate appeared on behalf of petitioner, while Mr. Muhammad Salah-ud-din Mengal, learned Advocate-General appeared on behalf of respondents.
6. ' Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the order was made by the Chief Minister for reinstatement has not been considered and the petitioner was required to be reinstated, as he has already deposited the alleged embezzled amount.
7. ' On the other hand, learned Advocate-General has contended that the order of termination was passed on 16th March, 2006, against which .Appeal also failed. It was further stated that the representation was made to the Chief Minister Balochistan and summaries were moved accordingly, wherein; the Chief Minister was pleased to see the record having observed 'seen', as such; no order of Chief Minister is in field. It was also contended that the jurisdiction with regard to the present case rests with Service Tribunal, and thus, this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.
8. ' We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is to note that services of petitioner were terminated somewhere in 2006, against which appeal failed. He filed representation to the Chief Minister on the ground that the alleged embezzled amount has already been deposited, thus; he is entitled to be reinstated. The order of Chief Minister has not been acknowledged/owned by the Department . On summaries moved in this behalf were returned with endorsement of 'seen'. The Government has filed parawise comments, wherein they have stated that the file was sent and was returned back, thus; no mandamus could be issued for implementation of any order. Even otherwise, this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter with regard to the termination order and appellate order, and; since the embezzled amount has been deposited, meaning thereby that guilt has been admitted. The relief under Constitutional petition is discretionary and cannot be exercised to perpetuate and encourage corruption, therefore; the petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.