' NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J. --- Through the present writ petition, invoking writ jurisdiction the petitioner has prayed as under:--- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that writ under Article 199 (1)(a) & (c) may be issued and it may be declared that the Public Accounts Committee had no authority even to look into the matter of remuneration of petitioner keeping in view the bar contained in Article 81(a)(v) of the Constitution, therefore, PAC's special report (Annex-A) may be declared coram-non-judice and mala fide; further the respondents No. 3&4 may be restrained from making recovery of paid salary amount merely upon the unauthorized recommendation of PAC until the finding for receipt of extra remuneration is given by the Supreme Judicial Council (competent forum) against the petitioner."
2. Facts contended are that the petitioner is the Auditor General of Pakistan and holds a Constitutional office having rights and obligations under Articles 168 to 171 of the Constitution. The terms and conditions of his service are governed by "Auditor General's (Functions, Powers and Terms and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance XXIII of 2001). His remuneration/pay/salary and allowances are determined according to the formula provided in the Bchedule of Section 3 of the Ordinance XXIII of 2001. Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 prepared a special report wherein the Public Accounts Committee held in para-6 of the report that the excess salary received by the petitioner be recovered and the issue of receiving excess salary be sent to the Supreme Judicial Council for disciplinary action as provided in Article 186(5) read with Article 209 of the Constitution. In this regard, respondent No. 3 issued letter dated 03.09.2014, whereby respondent No. 4 i.e. AGPR was directed to make recovery of alleged excess salary as directed by Public Accounts Committee in its special report dated 11.08.2014. In consequence whereof, AGPR forthwith issued letter dated 05.09.2014 for the recovery of alleged excess salary and accordingly issued revised pay slip dated 08.09.2014. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 had already filed a Reference in the Supreme Judicial Council for disciplinary action against the petitioner on this issue. The petitioner being aggrieved with the report of PAC, illegal recovery proceedings and reduction of authorized remuneration has filed this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that illegal recovery proceedings and reduction of authorized remuneration is a violation of Article 81(a)(v) of the Constitution read with Schedule to Section 3 of the Auditor General's (Functions, Powers and Terms and Conditions of Service Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance XXIII of 2001). Moreover, the findings of Supreme Judicial Council on the issue of excess remuneration/salary are still awaited. It is further contended that respondents Nos. 5 & 6 were neither acting as Court of law nor their special report was forthwith implementable without authoritative findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Judicial Council. In furtherance, he has contended that respondent Nos. 3 & 4 violated the law by initiating premature and unauthorized recovery proceedings against the petitioner without waiting for the decision of Supreme Judicial Council upon the Reference filed by PAC. The Public Accounts Committee lacks power for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner, knowing the fact that Article 81 (a)(v) of the Constitution does not authorize even the entire parliament for discussing remuneration of certain officers.
4. Learned Standing Counsel has put volunteer appearance by seeking permission and referred page-20 Annex-F of this petition. The petitioner himself through letter of 20.08.2014 admitted the filling of comments in the pending reference before the Supreme Judicial Council. Also he filed additionally the documents referring its page 26.
5. Arguments of both the sides have been heard and record perused.
6. The petitioner himself indicated some documents referring the comments already submitted by him in the above mentioned Reference. All the questions raised and legal issues involved in this writ petition are subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Judicial Council. The petitioner can agitate all these pleas before the concerned forum i.e. . Supreme Judicial Council, where complaint against him is pending. Moreover, the petitioner may submit requests made through this writ petition before the said Forum. This instant writ petition in my view is not maintainable.
7. In view of above-stated reasons, instant writ petition, being non-maintainable, is hereby dismissed in limine.