' The petitioner through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has prayed that a writ may kindly be issued to the effect that the petitioner being a dismissed employee cannot be proceeded under Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, therefore, initiation of inquiry be declared illegal, unlawful and ultra vires to the provisions of Punjab Employees Efficiency Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA Act, 2006) and order/notices dated 18.06.2015 and 30.06.2015 may kindly be ordered to be set aside.
2. Briefly the facts of the case discernable from this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Director on 19.10.1993 in Lahore Development Authority. He was served with a show- cause notice dated 24,01.2014 under Section 7(b) of PEEDA Act, 2006. An inquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service vide order dated 12.06.2014 under Section 2(f) of PEEDA Act 2006.
The petitioner assailed the order dated 12.06.2014 by filing departmental appeal under Section 16 of the PEEDA Act 2006 before the Chief Engineer TEEPA. LDA, Lahore. However, the same could not be heard for a long time by the competent authority, forcing the petitioner to file i.e, Writ Petition .1769 of 2015, which is still pending before this Court. The petitioner again was served with a notice of inquiry dated 18.06.2015 as well as 30.06.2015 by the respondent authorities which he assails through the instant writ petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly that he was dismissed from service vide order dated 12.06.2014, hence no further inquiry can be initiated against him by way of notice/order dated 18.06.2015 and 30.06.2015. It is further contended that as the petitioner is no more in service being dismissed employee, therefore, provisions of sub-sections (i), (ii) & (iii) of Section 4 of PEEDA Act, 2006, do not apply, hence notices referred to above may kindly be declared illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 2013 SCMR 1707, 2015 SCMR 705 and 2014 PLC (CS) 353.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. It is settled principal of law that the writ petition is not maintainable against show-cause notice, summons or notice as final order is yet to be passed and if any adverse order is passed then the petitioner may be at liberty to challenge the same by taking all objections/points available to him. I am not persuaded to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that show- cause notice, summons or notice may be assailed before this Court in Constitutional Jurisdiction.
Therefore, interference of High Court in the matter is not warranted by law. The writ petition at present stage is premature and not maintainable against intermediate stages or steps of departmental disciplinary proceedings. The respondent authorities are fully competent to issue the impugned notice/order of inquiry. In the instant case the petitioner has been served only with notice of inquiry. He should put up his appearance before the respondent authorities and file his reply in defence whatever he likes.
' In this regard reference may be made to 1969 SCMR 154, 2000 SCMR 1017, 2002 SCMR 805, 2008 PLC (CS) 129, 2001 PLC (CS) 939, 1984 CLC 142, 2002 CLC 42 and PLJ 2002 Lahore 1479.
6. The other contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as he had already been dismissed from service, hence even on a fresh ground he cannot be proceeded against. In support of his argument he relies upon Section 4 of PEEDA Act 2006 which reads as under: "(4) It shall apply to--
(i) employees in government service;
(ii) employees in corporation service; and
(iii) retired employees of government and corporation service; provided that proceedings under this Act are initiated against them during their service or within one year of their retirement."
' The answer to this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner has been completely given in case law titled Abdul Hague Shah vs. Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Saddar Sub-Division Gujranwala (1990 SCMR 782). In this case the contention of the petitioner was that if an order of dismissal was passed in an inquiry, the petitioner ceased to be a civil servant on passing of such an order and one who stands dismissed from service could not be further dismissed from it. This contention of the petitioner was squarely dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Paragraph No, 5 of the judgment which reads as under: "5. As regards the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner there is a decision of this Court that pending an appeal a person dismissed from service has to be treated as in service (reported as Rashid Ahmad v. The State PLD 1972 SC 271 at page 277."
7. Admittedly against the dismissal order dated 12.06.2014 the Writ Petition No, 1769 of 2015 is pending before this Court.
8. The relied upon judgments by the learned counsel for the petitioner are altogether on different facts and circumstances and law, hence are distinguishable.
9. For what has been discussed above, this petition has no merit, hence dismissed in limine: (R.A.)