' DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.---The petitioner was hired by the consultancy firm for the following projects:--
(i) Rural and Urban Highways;
(ii) Various types of projects/flyovers (more than 350 Nos);
(iii) Cement Plants;
(iv) Taxtile Spinning, Weaving and Finishing Units;
(v) Chemical and Pharmaceutical Factories; and
(vi) Steel making and Rolling Mills.
2. On one Project work commenced, however, neither pavement nor alignment over the construction work was made according to the standard specification, when the irregularity was detected, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice containing all the allegations and asking him to explain his position in writing as to why penalty should not be imposed in view of the contract agreement.
3. After receiving the reply, Inquiry Committee re-examined the matter in the light of reply and then cancelled the contract of the petitioner and also imposed penalty according to the loss suffered by the employer respondents.
4. As highly technical and factual controversy of facts in the matter is involved, which would require recording of evidence, spot inspection through qualified expert by appointing commission, which is neither the function of this Court nor permissible course in Constitutional jurisdiction, accordingly this petition is dismissed and the petitioner may, if so advised, approach the civil Court for the redressal of his grievances.