' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.--- By consent of the learned counsel for the parties this constitution petition was finally heard at Katcha Peshi stage and is being decided accordingly.
2. Petitioner joined department of Civil Aviation in 1969. The Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982 was promulgated on December 4 of 1982 and consequently petitioner became employee of the Civil Aviation Authority.
3. Grievance of petitioner is that his claim grant of combined pension for 26 years was not accepted. Learned counsel for petitioner was confronted with judgment of the apex Court in Pakistan International Airline Corporation v. Tanveer-ur-Rehman (PLD 2010 SC 676) that since Civil Aviation Authority does not have statutory rules, therefore, petition would not be maintainable.
Learned counsel referred to Article 7 Block Officer and Forest Guard, respectively, were responsible for loss to the Government of 310 tress valuing Rs,4,09,160.00. Thereafter, a regular inquiry was ordered to be conducted against the petitioners but instead of holding a separate inquiry both the inquiries were joined through order dated 4-11-2008 and Dr. Muhammad Rafiq, Conservator of Forests, was retained as Inquiry Officer in respect of both the inquiries one relating to the Jand Group involving persons other than the petitioners and the other relating to the Attock Range involving the petitioners.
8. In his Inquiry Report dated 20-2-2009, the Inquiry Officer found that the petitioners were not responsible for the alleged loss and recommended their exoneration. On the contrary, the Inquiry Officer found one of the four (4) accused officials of the Jand Group responsible for the damage and loss but exonerated the other three accused officials.
9. Partly disagreeing with the foregoing report, the Secretary, Forests, Wildlife and Fisheries Department, Government of Punjab, vide order dated 22-5-2009 directed de novo inquiry and appointed Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Qureshi, Conservator of Forests, as the Inquiry Officer who submitted his Inquiry Report, dated 4-5-2010, which once again exonerated the petitioners but found the four officials of the Jand Group responsible for the loss and recommended various penalties against them. Thereafter, agreeing with the said Inquiry Report, the Competent Authority vide order dated 10-6-2010 exonerated the petitioners while major penalties including dismissal and withholding of increments were imposed on the Jand Group officials.
10. Being aggrieved by the imposition of the major penalties, the four officials of the Jand Group filed departmental appeals under section 16 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, before the Chief Secretary, Punjab, respondent No,2, who by order dated 21-9-2010 allowed the aforesaid appeals and set aside the penalties imposed on the Jand Group and also ordered the holding of "a de novo inquiry against all the accused involved in this case".
11. Immediately following the Chief Secretary Punjab's Order dated 21-9-2010, the competent authority vide letter dated 21-9-2010 ordered a de novo inquiry and appointed Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Rana, Conservator, as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the allegations not only against the four accused officials of the Jand Group but also against the petitioners.
12. Through this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the competent authority's order dated 21-9-2010 to the extent that no fresh inquiry can be held against the petitioners as the competent authority had comes within the definition of the State as contained in Article 7 of the Constitution.
8. Without going into the question whether definition contained in Article 7 is only limited to what is contained in Part II of the Constitution a perusal of subsection (3) of section 16 indicates that these are the charges for various services performed by the Civil Aviation Authority and are therefore not tax or cess. Distinction between charges on the one hand or tax and cess on the other is that while charge is levied for services rendered, whether it is levied compulsorily or with consent is immaterial in this regard. On the other hand tax is a sovereign exaction under the authority of Parliament and has no link whatsoever with performance of any service. Therefore, what is levied under section 16(3) are charges and cess or tax, therefore, Civil Aviation Authority does not come within the definition of State as contained in Article 7 of the Constitution.
9. Under section 3(2) of the Ordinance of 1982 the Civil Aviation Authority is a body corporate.
Therefore, in accordance with dicta of honourable Supreme Court in Mrs. M.N. Arshad and others v.
Miss Naeema Khar, and others (PLD 1990 SC 612) employees of Civil Aviation Authority are not civil servants but are employees of the Authority and therefore since there are no statutory rules writ petition by such employees wou1d not be maintainable, in respect of grievances.
10. Consequently, this petition being not maintainable is dismissed in limini. Listed application is disposed of.
11. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to seek his remedy in such forum as may be available to him in accordance with the law.