' Through this order we intend to dispose of both the above petitions as in both the cases common questions of facts and law are involved.
2. The petitioners in C.P. No.D-1544 of 2015 are civil servants and officers of Pakistan Customs. The petitioner No.1 is Principal Appraiser, the petitioner No.2 is Appraising Officer and the petitioner No.3 was Examiner. The petitioner in C.P. No.D-1314 of 2014 is Appraising Officer in Pakistan Customs. The petitioner No.3 in C.P.No.D-1544 of 2014 retired during the pendency of these proceedings. The petitioners are aggrieved by the show-cause notices issued to them in March, 2015. All of them were charged for inefficiency, misconduct and corruption. They were called upon to show-cause within seven days as to why penalty including major penalty of dismissal from service, should not be imposed upon them. Being aggrieved by the issuance of show-cause notices, the petitioners have filed the present petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the action is mala fide and not maintainable as the same was based on SRO-172(I)/2013 dated 5-3-2013 which was the scheme that was launched by the Federal Government for the release of smuggled vehicles upon payment of fine and duty and the petitioners acting on such scheme had processed the release of such vehicles only which were covered by the scheme. He submitted that this scheme was even challenged in the Islamabad High Court and though the Single Judge declared the scheme to be discriminatory but on appeal, the Division Bench of Islamabad High Court held that the scheme was valid and the action taken by the officers under the scheme were based on valid scheme.
According to the petitioner's counsel in view of the findings of the Islamabad High Court and the statement of the functionaries of Pakistan Customs made before Islamabad High Court, no illegality was committed by the petitioners under the scheme and the show-cause notices being nullity in law are contrary to the provisions of Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. He submitted that in such circumstances this Court has the jurisdiction to interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments reported in 2014 PLC (C.S.) 1032, 1363, 2014 PLC (C.S.) 159, 2011 SCMR 698, 2010 SCMR 1345, 2014 SCMR 1407, 1557, 1567, SBLR 2015 SC 15, 2000 PLC 184, PLD 1997 SC 382, PLD 1987 SC 447, 2011 PLC (C.S.) 673, 562, 2014 PTD 1531, 1988 SCMR 691, SBLR 2001 945-969, PLD 1981 SC 612, 1999 SCMR 483, PLD 1988 Kar. 401, 1987 CLC 393 and 1999 SCMR 2518.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Mr. Sarfaraz Metlo, argued that the action has been taken against the petitioners not on the ground that why scheme was implemented but on the ground that they allowed exemptions on such vehicles as well which were not even in Pakistan, therefore, reliance placed on the decision of Intra Court Appeal of Islamabad High Court is of no relevance to the present case.
5. We have noticed that prior to the issuance of the show-cause notices, an inquiry was initiated against the petitioners and in this regard Constitutional Petitions bearing Nos.D-293, 294 and 294(sic) of 2015 were filed and this Court disposed of all the three petitions through a common order:--- "10-2-2015.--- The Federal Government launched a scheme for release of smuggled and non-duty paid vehicles upon payment of fine and duty under SRO No.172(I)/2013 dated 5-3-2013. Thereafter it was found that this scheme was misused by some unscrupulous elements who sought exemption for such vehicles as well which were not in Pakistan. This resulted in initiation of an inquiry into the whole conduct of the scheme. Internal inquiry report was prepared where the employees involved in the misuse of the scheme were identified and show-cause notices were issued to them. The petitioner is one of such employees who is aggrieved by the inquiry proceedings. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the proceedings are biased and do not afford full opportunity of fair trial as guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution. He further contends that in a proceeding before the Islamabad High Court it was stated by the department that the scheme is in fact generating revenue for the Federal Government and the mala fide intention attributed to the employees is without any basis. In this regard the counsel for the petitioner relied upon the memo. Of Intra-Court Appeal filed before the Islamabad High Court wherein such stand has been taken. It is also contended that where action is tainted with malice then this Court has jurisdiction to entertain cases and grant injunctive orders.
' The determination of true facts with regard to misuse of the scheme is yet to surface as the disciplinary action has not yet been completed. No doubt, at this stage no one can conclude that the petitioner is involved or not. The liability is to be determined in the inquiry proceedings that are initiated against the petitioner. To stifle such proceedings on the basis of the pleadings of the department made before the Islamabad High Court would prejudice the very inquiry and the purpose for which disciplinary action is being undertaken. In disciplinary action taken against civil servants this Court has no jurisdiction. Once the liability is determined, the remedy to challenge such determination is available to a civil servant before the Service Tribunal. This Court finds no justification to interfere at this stage on the basis of the show cause notice that has been issued to the petitioner. In the light of the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment dated 5-1-2015, passed in Civil Review Petition No.193 of 2013 etc. (Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh and others) office is directed to remit this petition to the Federal Service Tribunal for its decision on merits. Parties or their counsel should appear before the Tribunal on 6-4-2015.
' In the present proceedings, we abstain from addressing petitioners' arguments on merits of the case as any view taken on merits may prejudice either of the parties to the proceedings. All that we can say is that the show-cause notices were issued but no final order has been passed. Once the final order is passed then the remedy is available to the petitioners and that too under Service Laws as the petitioners are civil servants. We have already held in the order passed in the earlier round that where a disciplinary action is taken against a civil servant, the jurisdiction of this Court is barred. This has also been held by the Supreme Court in Paragraphs Nos.150 and 156 of the order passed in Civil Review Petition No. 193 of 2013 etc. (Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh and others).
' These petitions are therefore dismissed in limine.