' This Intra Court Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the Judgment dated 27-6- 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber whereby he dismissed the Writ Petition No,679 of 2006 filed by the appellant.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Junior Clerk in the respondents-Board on 30-5-1995. During the examination three persons were detected and apprehended for impersonating and changing the photographs on the role number slips. A criminal case was registered against them. After conducting an inquiry the petitioner was also found to be involved in the matter being the Dealing Clerk. Statement of allegations was served on him and he was charge sheeted on 16-2-1997. In reply thereto he tendered his unconditional apology partly admitting his lapse. The Inquiry Officer found the appellant to be guilty. The Authorized Officer concurred with the report of the Inquiry Officer and the Authority imposed major penalty of removal from service. He was accordingly removed from service on 15- 5-1997. He filed departmental appeal to the competent authority which was dismissed on 9-8- 1999. He filed a Writ Petition No,8893 of 1999 which was disposed of on 30-9-1999 and the petitioner was directed to be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and the matter was ordered to be decided afresh. After doing the needful the appeal of the appellant was dismissed on 2-2-2000 by the appellate authority. The appellant also availed remedy before the Punjab Service Tribunal by filing an appeal but it was dismissed on 3-10-2000 for want of jurisdiction. Similarly a Grievance Petition filed by him in the Labour Court also met with the same fate as he was not found to be a workman. Thereafter he filed F.A.O. No,25 before this Court in 2005 which was withdrawn on 1-2- 2006 and subsequently the Writ Petition No,679 of 2006 was filed which was vehemently resisted by the respondents and the learned Single Judge dismissed the same vide impugned Judgment dated 27-6-2006. Feeling aggrieved of the said Judgment the instant I.C.A. Has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant almost repeated his arguments which were advanced before the learned Single Judge. He maintained that the learned Single Judge in Chamber did not appreciate the facts of the case and did not take notice of the letter dated 25-4-1997 of personal hearing and proposed punishment of reduction to a lower grade or post or time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale. Later on the said letter was withdrawn and letter dated 5-5-1997 was issued proposing the imposition of major penalty of removal from service. The learned counsel further maintained that there were two inquiry reports on the record one in English and the other in Urdu.
The learned Single Judge failed to check the authenticity of the plea taken by the respondents regarding the issuance of letter of minor penalty in respect of another employee of the Board Munir Ahmad Awan. While summing up his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber as well as the second proposal dated 5-5-1997 and the order dated 15-5-1997 passed by respondents as the penalty imposed upon the appellant was harsh and unjustified and was based on mala fides.
4. The appeal has been vehemently resisted by the respondents on the grounds that the major penalty was rightly imposed upon the appellant as the charges against him were proved. The learned counsel also assailed the maintainability of the Intra Court Appeal as an appeal was provided under Regulation 9 of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Multan Employees Service Regulations. So under proviso to section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 no appeal could be preferred by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge.
5. We have considered the arguments advanced from both the sides and Although the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is based on sound reasoning and each and every aspect of the matter has been discussed and dealt with in detail but first of all the question of maintainability of the ICA is to be determined. The perused the record. To section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 provides that the appeal referred to in subsection (ii) shall not be available and competent if the application brought before the High Court under Article 199 arises out of any proceedings in which the law applicable, provided for at least one appeal or one revision or one review to any Court, Tribunal or Authority against the original order. The order of removal from service against the petitioner was assailed in the writ petition and there is no denial of the fact that an appeal was provided to the departmental authority against the same. The appellant admittedly availed the said remedy by filing an appeal. So this Intra Court Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge is barred by the proviso of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance. So without dwelling upon the merits of the case this I.C.A. Is hereby dismissed being not maintainable.