' SHAH KHAWAR, J. --- Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 19.05.2014 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby in term of Section 4 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 penalty of removal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. Vide order dated 15.09.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked why the petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court against the impugned order, where the petitioner has been adjudged against in terms of PEEDA Act, 2006.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that since the impugned order has been passed with male fide intention by the respondent No. 2 as the petitioner had got lodged an F.I.R. Against some of the officers of the respondents and impugned action is based upon vengeance, which has been developed by whole of the department against the petitioner. Learned counsel laid emphasis that in such-like cases, the superior Courts have got the powers of judicial review. Reliance has been placed on the cases "Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority and others v. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmad' (2013 SCMR 1707), "Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others" (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 602) and Suo Motu case No. 24 of 2010 in the matter of "Corruption in Hajj Arrangements, 2010" (PLJ 2012 SC 73).
3. Conversely learned counsel for respondents and learned Assistant Advocate General have forcefully argued that Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 places bar on the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, as matter pertaining to the terms and conditions of a civil servant is involved. They have placed reliance on the cases of "Anwar Pervaiz v. Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Abbottabad and 2 others" (2005 SCMR 1603), "Azizullah Memon v. Province of Sindh and another'
(2007 SCMR 229), "Muhammad Umar Lodhi, Deputy Manager Operation Cantt. Division, Multan v.
Managing Director (Power), WAPDA, Lahore and another" (2007 PLC (C.S.) 1). In addition to the above, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 which provides remedy of filing appeal before the Service Tribunal if any civil servant is aggrieved by any final order, whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service. In the same manner in accordance with Section 1(4)(ii) of the PEEDA Act, 2006 it applies to the employees in corporation service.
4. I have given conscious consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments, relied upon.
5. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner (2013 SCMR 1707) is altogether on different premises. A question of law has been settled in respect of "function test" to consider whether a statutory body was a "person" within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution?
Another question of law has been enunciated to the effect that "Actions or orders passed by statutory bodies in question which were violative of the statutory bodies creating them or of the rules/regulations framed under such statutes, could be interfered with by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution." In the same manner the cases of "Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others" (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 602) and "Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority and others v. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmad" (2013 SCMR 1707) are not applicable to the case of present petitioner.
6. Without adverting to the facts and merits of the instant case, suffice it to say that respondent- Punjab Seed Corporation is a statutory corporation in which the petitioner was an employee. The petitioner has been proceeded against under the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 and departmental penalty in the shape of removal from service has been imposed upon him. Through instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and his reinstatement into service. There is no cavil with the proposition that Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has placed specific bar on the jurisdiction of this Court in interfering with the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. This being so, the petitioner has wrongly invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.
7. The instant writ petition is dismissed in the above terms. However, it is observed that the petitioner, if so advised, may approach the learned Punjab Service Tribunal by filing an appeal against the impugned order of dismissal from service. Passed by respondent No. 2 and in case such appeal is filed, it is expected that the learned Tribunal will sympathetically consider the prayer of the petitioner for condonation of delay keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had filed his grievance before a wrong forum but, in time.
8.. Petition stands dismissed.