' 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 petitioners: "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that while accepting the instant writ petition show-cause notices issued to the petitioners may kindly be declared null and void without any sanction of law. The costs of litigation may please be awarded in favour of petitioners against the non-petitioners. Any other relief which this Honorable Court deems fit be granted in favour of petitioners."
2. The summary of the case is that petitioners are employees of Bank of Azad Jammu & Kashmir who are discharging their duties in different cadres at Rawalakot and Khaigala branches. It is averred that Bank of Azad Jammu & Kashmir introduced a gold loan scheme policy on January, 10th 2013, whereby loans were extended to the borrowers against security of gold to be submitted with treasury of the Bank. As per claim of petitioners respondents provided a list of the goldsmiths enlisted on panel of the Bank to verify genuineness of gold against which loans were to be issued. It is averred that respondents nominated Asmat Bashir owner of M/s. Bismilla Jewelers, Bara Market Rawalakot, as goldsmith to verity gold for the branches of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Bank at Rawalakot and Khaigala. It is alleged that petitioners in accordance with the said policy extended loans to barrowers after verifying genuineness of gold submitted by them through Asmat Bashir owner of M/s. Bismillah Jewelers, Bara Market Rawalakot. It is further alleged that M/s. Bismillah Jewelers collaborated with few of borrowers for petty gains and for that purpose hatched a conspiracy with the said borrowers and inflicted loss to the treasury and reputation of the Bank. It is stated that on the basis of the aforesaid act of M/s. Bismillah Jewelers, petitioners being considered as responsible were served with show-cause notices and charge sheeted by the respondents, hence, they constrained to file the instant constitution petition.
3. On Court notice Respondents No. 2 to 6 have filed parawise comments, wherein it is stated that against issuance of show-cause notices and charge sheets, writ petition is not maintainable. It is further stated that points involved in the writ petition pertain to the disputed questions of facts which cannot be resolved in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and prayed for dismissal of writ petition in limine.
4. Ms. Rahat Farooq, the learned counsel for petitioners, vehemently argued that respondents for mala-fide reasons issued groundless show-cause notices and charge sheets to petitioners against which writ petition is maintainable. The learned counsel pressed into service that petitioners had nothing to do with M/s. Bismillah Jewelers and Bank was itself responsible to enlist the aforesaid jewelers, hence, all proceedings initiated by respondents are baseless against which no any adequate remedy is available to her clients, therefore, craved for admission of writ petition.
5. Kh. Ansar Ahmed, the learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 6, strenuously argued that against show-cause notices and charge sheets, writ petition filed by petitioners is bad in law. The learned counsel further argued that even otherwise there are disputed questions of facts involved in the given case, which need thorough inquiry proceedings against petitioners, hence, craved for dismissal of writ petition in limine. The learned counsel in support of his contentions referred to and relied upon the following case law:-
(i) Dilshad Kausar vs. Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government (Prime Minister) through Chief Secretary and 02 others [2005 PLC (CS) 1048].
(ii) Ghulam Mehmood Qureshi vs. Federation of Pakistan [2003 PLC (CS) 645].
6. After hearing the learned counsel for parties at great length, I have perused the contents of writ petition and examined the appended documents with utmost care. The petitioners are discharging their duties as Chief Manager, Operations Manager, Credit Officer, Manager and Officer of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Bank at Rawalakot and Khaigala branches respectively. The sole legal point raised in the instant writ petition is that whether show-cause notices and charge sheets issued against petitioners can be challenged through writ jurisdiction or not? The aforesaid point came under consideration before the Lahore High Court, in case titled Muhammad Fayyaz vs. Province of Punjab [NLR 1994 Service 30], At page 32 of the precedent case, it was held as follows: "2. When the learned counsel was asked to indicate the issuance or otherwise of any order by the respondent-authorities after the receipt of the reply by the petitioner dated 27.05.1993, copy whereof is available at Annex-P to this petition, he submitted that initiation of action against the petitioner is tainted with mala fides and for that reason alone this Court can issue a writ/order in the nature of certification under Article 199 of the Constitution. I am afraid the contention has little merit in the context of the accrual of any cause in favour of the petitioner at this stage, to lay a challenge to the issuance of charge-sheets against him. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent-authorities have finalized the consideration of his case at their level without considering his reply/replies to the charges leveled against him. Even the replies of the petitioner are conspicuously silent about any mala fides on the part of the respondent-authorities in issuing the charge-sheets to him. Be that as it may, in the matter of disposal of petitioner's case at more than one levels in the offices of the respondent-Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, he will have the chance to put forward his case before the competent-authorities and it would be thereafter that he will be possessed of any right to lay a challenge here on available grounds. This petition has been filed at too premature a stage to qualify for consideration at this juncture. The same is dismissed in limine."
' The same view was again considered by the Lahore High Court in case titled Muhammad Javed vs. Executive District Officer (Education) Sialkot and 02 others [PLJ 2002 Lahore 1393]. At page 1395 of the precedent case, it was opined as under: "4. The petitioner has challenged the vires of the charge-sheet through this Constitution petition, hence, the writ petition is not maintainable ' The same view was reiterated by the Lahore High Court, in another case titled Ghulam Mehmood Qureshi vs. Federation of Pakistan [2003 PLC (CS) 645], wherein at page,654 of the report it was opined as under: "19. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sited number of instances to contend that the intention of the respondents in issuing the charge-sheet was based on malafides. In the first place the mere allegation of malafides by itself is no proof that the act is actually based on malafides.
Even otherwise, in case an adverse action is taken in a mala-fide manner, the question of mala- fide also is to be dealt with exclusively at the appropriate stage by the Service Tribunal in its exclusive jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on Zahid Akhter vs. Government of Punjab PLD 1995 SC 530.
20. This will take us to the actual nature of the charge-sheet in the Scheme of the disciplinary proceedings. A charge-sheet is merely an expression made by the department against its employees stating therein that the particular acts of misconduct are alleged against him. This is the first step to commence the disciplinary proceedings. It is neither a condemnation of the civil servant nor indeed a stigma or slur on his service record. Unless proved it remains in the nature of an allegation which may or may not be proved during the course of an inquiry. Putting an end to charge-sheet, at its very inception, unless the charge-sheet is shown to be ab initio, void, shall be tantamount to stifling of the disciplinary proceedings which shall result in thwarting and defeating the purpose and object of the disciplinary proceedings themselves. Invoking writ jurisdiction at such stage shall not be a prudent exercise of jurisdiction.
21. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed."
' The point pertaining to challenge a show-cause notice in writ jurisdiction was considered by the Honorable Supreme Court in case titled Shaheen Asad vs. Azfar Yaseen and 04 others [2000 SCR 308]. At page 317 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 also considered by this Court in case titled Dilshad Kausar vs. Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government and 02 others [2005 PLC (CS) 10481, wherein at 1055 of the report, it was held as under: "The writ petition is also not maintainable for being filed against a show-cause notice. A notice can be challenged in writ jurisdiction when it is shown that the same has been issued without jurisdictional competence and in that eventuality a notice can be termed as "act done" or "proceedings taken" with the meaning of sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. Where the absence of jurisdiction is not shown, the declaration that the notice has been issued without lawful authority cannot be given."
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.