' M. TABASSUM AFTAB ALVI, J.--- The supra titled writ petition has been addressed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, whereby following relief is solicited by petitioner:--- "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that by accepting this writ petition, an appropriate writ/writs may kindly be granted:--
(i) Restraining the respondents from taking further action in the light of the notice in which the petitioner is summoned for 16-2-2015 which is even dated with further request to quash the taken proceedings by the respondents.
(ii) Directing the respondents to sanction the leave permissible to the petitioner in the light of University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Leave Statute, 1981 for which the petitioner is very much entitled for the same as requested through application and clarification till that the respondents are restrained from taking any action against the petitioner."
2. The summary of the case is that petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir vide notification dated 2-8-2001. After due process, he was confirmed against the aforesaid post on recommendation of concerned Selection Board vide order dated 18-4-2002.
The petitioner being eligible was selected by Higher Education Commission for Overseas Scholarship, hence, he was proceeded on study leave for 5 years period. As per claim of petitioner, he was awarded degree of Ph.D. On 1-1-2012. After completion of the degree course petitioner joined the University on 9-7-2012. After having N.O.C. From Government petitioner again proceeded for abroad and later on applied for 1 year leave through application dated 7-9-2012. However, respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings against petitioner on the grounds of absence and violation of agreement etc. As per University Employees Efficiency and Discipline Statutes, 1988 and Professor Doctor Muhammad Qayyum Khan, Director Quality Enhancement Cell, was appointed as authorized officer vide order dated 7-4-2014. The petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter a show-cause notice for personal hearing, was issued to him by Registrar University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, which has been challenged through the instant constitutional petition.
3. The writ petition has been resisted by respondents through comments wherein it is stated that petitioner has not invoked jurisdiction of this Court with clean hands, therefore, he is not entitled to discretionary relief of writ jurisdiction. It is further stated that petitioner was supposed to join his duties on 21-1-2012, after completion of study leave, who failed to fulfill an executed agreement with University, hence, petition is bad in law. The writ petition has also been controverted on all factual and legal points.
4. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Janjua, the learned counsel for petitioner, vehemently argued that after completion of 5 years study leave, petitioner joined the University and again sought admission in Ph.D. For completion of thesis, hence, repeated applications for leave were moved which were not entertained by the respondents. The learned counsel further submitted that against show-cause notice writ petition can be entertained by this Court and in this regard he referred to and relied upon a case titled Azad Jammu and Kashmir University and another v. Muhammad Malik and others [1995 SCR 231] and submitted for admission of writ petition.
' In case, supra, it was held by the apex Court that notice or letter issued without lawful authority can be termed as act done or proceedings taken within the meaning of sub-clause (ii) of clause
(a) of section 44 of Interim Constitution Act, 1974 and a declaration to that effect can be given by the High Court.
5. Syed Mushtaq Hussain Gillani, the learned counsel for respondents, has raised two preliminary objections (i) that all the documents appended along with writ petition including the impugned show-cause notice are photo stat copies, therefore, writ petition is bad in law and (ii) against the impugned show-cause notice, the writ petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel for respondents in support of his aforesaid contentions referred to and relied upon the following case- law:---
(i) Shaheen Asad v. Azfar Yaseen and 4 others [2000 SCR 308], and
(ii) An unreported judgment of the apex Court titled Iffat Bibi v. Azad Government and others [Civil Appeal No,6/2013] decided on 13-5-2014.
' In case of Shaheen Asad, supra, it was, inter alia, held by the apex Court that a show-cause notice cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction if issued by a competent authority.
' In unreported precedent case of Iffat Bibi, ibid, it was opined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the impugned seniority list appended along with memorandum of appeal before Service Tribunal was not certified copy of original seniority list, which was photo stat copy, hence, appeal before Tribunal was accordingly not maintainable.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for parties, I have perused the contents of writ petition and examined the appended documents with utmost care.
7. A contemplate perusal of record reveals that petitioner has challenged vires of the impugned show-cause notice, issued by Registrar of Azad Jammu and Kashmir University. A photo stat copy of the aforesaid show-cause notice has been appended with writ petition which is hit by sub-rule
(2) of rule 32 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, which speaks as under:--- "32(2) The application shall set out the name and description of the applicant, the exact nature of the relief sought and the ground on which it is sought, and shall be accompanied by an affidavit verifying the facts relied on, a certified copy of the impugned order and at least two copies thereof including annexures if any, in addition to separate copy for each one of the respondents. The annexures accompanying the petition shall be marked numerically in red ink by the petitioner and the petition shall be properly indexed." (Underlining is mine for emphasizing)
' As petitioner failed to append certified copy of the impugned show cause, hence, writ petition is bad in law. The same proposition was considered by the apex Court in an unreported case titled Iffat Bibi v. Azad Government and others (Civil Appeal No,6/2013) decided on 13-5-2014. The relevant paragraphs Nos.12 and 13 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:--- "12. The seniority list issued by the Government appended with the appeal in the Service Tribunal and attested ,by the Advocate-General is not a certified true copy under Article 87(2) and does not fulfill the requirement of Rule 7(e) of the Azad-Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1976. The copy appended with the memorandum of appeal is not a certified true copy of original seniority list. It is only a photocopy and photocopy is not admissible in evidence.
13. Thus we have reached the conclusion that the appeal filed in the Service Tribunal without appending the certified copy of the order impugned was not competent, it merits dismissal on the sole ground."
8. The other preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for respondents is also valid that against show-cause notice writ petition is not maintainable. The aforesaid point came under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Shaheen Asad v. Azfar Yaseen and 4 others [2000 SCR 308]. At pages 317 and 318 of the report, it was opined as follows:--- "15. In our view a show-cause notice can be challenged in a writ petition only if it has been issued without lawful authority but it cannot be so challenged if it has been issued by a competent authority. Through a show-cause notice adverse material is brought to the notice of the concerned person without previously determining the finality of that material and the person likely to be adversely affected is given an opportunity to explain his position. The writ jurisdiction conferred on the High Court is supervisory in nature under which the High Court can issue a declaration that an act done or proceedings taken is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The High Court is also authorized to issue a writ, of prohibition to stop a person from performing an act that person is not allowed by law to do. The High Court has no jurisdiction to transfer the proceeding pending before an executive or judicial officer and decide it itself. While exercising writ jurisdiction the High Court cannot substitute its own opinion for the opinion of an administrative officer."
' The aforesaid point was considered by this Court in an unreported case titled "Muhammad Bashir and others v. Azad Government and others" (Writ Petition No,2667/2014) decided on 2-2-2015. The relevant para No,7 of the aforesaid case is reproduced as under:- "7. By respectfully following the aforesaid precedent cases it is held that against the impugned charge sheets and show-cause notices, issued by the competent authority, the instant writ petition is not maintainable, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. However, petitioners will be at liberty to place their defence before the concerned Bank as per law."
'The writ petition filed by petitioner, therefore, against the impugned show-cause notice, issued by the competent authority, is not maintainable.
9. The nub of the above discussion is that preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for respondents are prevailed and writ petition is hereby dismissed in limine. However, petitioner will be at liberty to place his defence before the competent authority as per law.