Pakistan Case Law← Search
2011 PLC (C.S.) 1209

Dr. MULAZIM HUSSAIN SUMRO vs SPECIAL SECRETARY HEALTH, PUNJAB,

Citation2011 PLC (C.S.) 1209
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No,3052 of 2011/BWP
Date2011-06-08
Judge(s)Abdus Sattar Asghar
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

' ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.--- Dr. Mulazim Hussain Sumro, being aggrieved of show-cause notice dated 11-5-2011 issued by Dr. Muhammad Sami Akhtar Processor (BS-20) Nishtar Medical College Multan/respondent No,2, the Inquiry Officer, has called it in question on the ground that the same is illegal, mala fide and without lawful authority.

2. I have given patient hearing to the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his able assistance.

3. The record reveals that by orders of the competent authority an inquiry under the PEEDA Act, 2006 on the charge of professional irregularities and misconduct was ordered against Dr. Mulazim Hussain Sumro/petitioner vide order dated 23-4-2010 passed by Special Secretary (Health), Government of the. Punjab. On submission of report of the Inquiry Officer that charges have been proved against the petitioner, Special Secretary (Health) Government of the Punjab issued impugned show-cause-cum-personal hearing notice dated 11-5-2011 under section 13(4) of the PEEDA Act, 2006 whereby he is called upon to show cause within seven days of the receipt of the notice as to why the penalties mentioned in the notice be not imposed upon him. He is also offered opportunity of personal hearing and directed to appear before the Execution District Officer (Health), Multan/Hearing Officer appointed by the competent authority and further allowed to submit his additional defence in writing before the Hearing Officer on the date to be communicated by the Hearing Officer.

4. Bare perusal of the impugned show-cause notice transpires that the same is issued in accordance with the law in exercise of lawful authority under the PEEDA Act, 2006. Certainly the matter pertains to the terms and conditions of the service. Plea of mala fide .Being a question of fact not sufficiently substantiated with any speck of material on the record cannot be looked into by this Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction at this stage. No decision adverse to the petitioner is passed in the impugned show cause-cum personal hearing notice. It is pertinent to mention that object of show-cause notice is to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to explain and produce his defence before the Hearing Officer following the rule of audi alteram partem. It does not amount to infringement of any statutory or secured right of the petitioner, therefore, the same cannot be called in question through invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Instant writ petition being pre-mature is not maintainable and thus dismissed in limine.

Cited by 2 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search