' MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J.--- The petitioner is working as a Patwari in the Revenue Department, Government of the Punjab. On receipt of a complaint against the petitioner, respondent No,2 being the competent authority under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 passed an order for holding of an inquiry. On 5-10-2012 in the order impugned herein General Assistant (Revenue) Toba Tek Singh was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct an inquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner was given seven days time to come forward with his defense in writing.
2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being victimized by the higher officials of the Revenue Department for no `fault of his own. Ashiq Ali, respondent No,7 being inimically disposed towards the petitioner filed a false and frivolous application stating therein that the petitioner had deliberately made a wrong entry in the "Khasra Girdawari". The application filed by respondent No,7 upon which inquiry proceedings have been initiated is tainted with mala fide.
Miscarriage of justice would take place in case the impugned order dated 5-10-2012 calling upon the petitioner to submit his written reply is not declared to be illegal.
3. After hearing the arguments which have been advanced at the limine stage and going through the documents which have been appended with this petition it is clear that no final order has been passed against the petitioner. On receipt of a complaint, respondent No,2 being the competent authority under Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 appointed General Assistant (Revenue), Toba Tek Singh as an Inquiry Officer and directed the petitioner to file his reply. Without waiting for the result of the inquiry, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. It is trite that a petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 would not be maintainable against initiation of an inquiry or issuance of a notice B directing the petitioner to file his reply as has been held by this Court in Muhammad Akhtar Sherani and 35 others v. The Punjab Textbook Board, Lahore and 4 others 2001 PLC (C.S.) 939. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Virasat Ullah v. Bashir Ahmad Settlement Commissioner (Industries) and another 1969 SCMR 154 has also held C that no writ can he issued against mere issuance of a notice. In the instant case, a notice has been issued to the petitioner indicating therein an inquiry is being initiated against him wherein he has also been directed to file a reply. It is thus clear that only a reply has been sought D from the petitioner and no final order has been passed.
5. In this view of the matter, this petition being pre-mature and without any merit stands dismissed in limine.