' SHAHID WAHEED, J.--- The petitioner, Syed Khalid Mehmood Bukhari, through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has called in question show-cause notice dated 22-5-2012 issued under the PTCL ' Service Regulations, 1996.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined service as Engineer Supervisor on 1-2- 1986 in the Telephone and Telegraph (T&T) Department which was subsequently converted into Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited. On 22-5-2012, respondent No,1 on behalf of the Authority issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner in respect of following allegations:---
(i) Despite of having received timely information/absentee report from the ABM Farooqabad, vide letters dated 18-8-2008 and 17-11-2008, you did not stop the salary of Mr. Shahbaz Alam, ALM Qila, Sheikhupura who is absent from duty w,e,f, 18-8-2008.
(ii) Further-more, you neither initiated any disciplinary action against the absconder employee nor reported to this effect to the regional management.
' The petitioner, instead of submitting reply to the show-cause notice, has moved this Court through the instant petition and assailed the legality of show-cause notice.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned show cause notice is not valid as the same has been issued under the wrong provisions of law; that the impugned show cause notice suffers from malice; and, that no material in respect of allegations is available and, therefore, no punishment can be awarded to the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. The petitioner was working as Business Manager in the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited when the Competent Authority issued show cause notice dated 22-5-2012 and called upon his defense as to why major penalty of dismissal from service along with recovery of pecuniary loss to the Company should not be imposed in terms of Regulation No,7.04(1)(b-iv) of PTCL Service Regulations 1996. The petitioner instead of submitting reply has moved the instant petition and assailed the vires of show-cause notice. It is settled principle of law that when charge sheet or a show-cause notice is issued then full opportunity is given to an employee to reply to the charge sheet or show cause notice and to raise all the points available to him. I am not persuaded to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned show cause notice may be assailed before this court in constitutional jurisdiction as it suffers from malice and has been issued under the wrong provisions of law. Shows-cause notice may be challenged through writ petition only if the same has been issued by an incompetent authority as High Court is authorized to issue writ of prohibition to stop a person from performing an act which that person is not allowed by law to do. It is not the case of the petitioner that impugned show cause notice has been issued by an incompetent authprity and, therefore, interference of High Court in matter of issuance of show-cause notice is not warranted by law. I am conscious of the fact that striking down any act for mala'fide exerciseof power is a judicial reserve power exercised lethally, but rarely. The charge of mala fides against public bodies and authorities is more easily made than made out and, therefore, it would be apposite if an employee is asked to raise this objection, at the first instance, before the Competent Authority or the departmental forum. Similarly, plea of wrong provision of law, allegedly cited in the impugned show-cause notice, may be canvassed before the departmental authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. SHAGUFTA BEGUM v. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE XI, ZONE-B, LAHORE (PLD 1989 SC 360) has held that objection, if any, to the show cause notice should be raised at the first instance before the Competent Authority or the departmental forum and thereafter the employee should pursue the channel of appeal/revision before the higher departmental forum. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under:--- "Accordingly we consider it fit case in which the petitioner would be well advised if Ire raises the pleas sought to be advanced before this Court, in the departmental forum in the first instance and also pursue the normal channels of appeal/ revision/ reference to the higher departmental forum.
The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel that the departmental authorities are likely to support the issuance of notice after this contest before the superior court, is unfounded at least at this stage. The learned Income Tax Officer having thought, prima facie, that he had the jurisdiction, issued the impugned notice. There would be nothing wrong in his hearing the party concerned on the relevant objections including that of his jurisdiction. He would not make it a question of personal prestige if he finds that the notice was issued without jurisdiction. On the other hand, if he feels satisfied that he had the jurisdiction; same would apply to him such a determination accordingly. It is well known that a plea regarding the assumption of jurisdiction by Tribunal or a Court is available to a litigant even when appearing before the highest court in the country. It is, therefore, hoped and expected that when an objection in this behalf is raised before the learned officer concerned, he would dispassionately examine it on its own merits and render a decision which he believes, bona fide, to be correct."
' Same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN v. HABIB BANK LTD. Through President and others (2004 SCM R 149).
6. A show-cause notice or a charge-sheet is merely an expression made by a Department/Organization against its employee stating therein that particular acts of misconduct are alleged against him. This is the first step of the disciplinary proceedings and being interlocutory orders are in the nature of a step towards a final order eventually to be passed and will be merged with the final order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "ALLAH BUKHSH v. D.I.-G.
POLICE" (2003 UC 60) has held that constitutional petition against show-cause notice is not maintainable and civil servants in disciplinary proceedings will have to wait till a final order is passed. It is also settled principle of law that writ petition is not maintainable against intermediate stages or steps of departmental disciplinary proceedings. In this regard reference may be made to the case of "ABDUL WAHAB KHAN v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and 3 others" (PLD 1989 SC 508) and "MUHAMMAD JAVED v. EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (EDUCATION), SIALKOT and 2 others" (PLJ 2002 Lah. 1393). Interference in the interlocutory orders such as charge-sheet/show-cause notice and putting an end to them at its inception, unless same is shown to be without jurisdiction, would amount to stifling of disciplinary proceedings. In view of above, this is not the stage at which this court should entertain the petitions filed by a delinquent employee challenging and for quashing the show cause notice and appropriate course for the petitioner to adopt is to file his reply to the impugned show-cause notice and invite the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. Prior to that stage, any petition for quashing the charge sheet or show cause notice is pre mature. In this regard reference may be made to the case of KHALID MEHMOOD CH. And others v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB (2002 SCM R 805).
7. This petition, being not maintainable, is dismissed in limine.