Through this petition filed under Section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, following relief is prayed for by the petitioner: "It is therefore, very humbly prayed on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the facts, circumstances, enumerated in the writ petition, the Hon'ble Court may kindly issued an appropriate writ in the favour of the petitioner that the report of inquiry officer in favour of the petitioner (Annexure "E") proceedings of appointment of inquiry officer, notification dated 19.05.2016 to the extent of clauses (iv) and (vi) regarding petitioner be quashed. Further , the respondents be restrained from initiating any criminal proceedings against the petitioner , till the disposal of the representation before Chief Secretary and this writ Petition. Any other relief which the petitioner is entitled may kindly be granted in the interest of justice."
2. Precise facts of the case as stated are that a development scheme "Toli Pir Hill Resort" was launched by the Tourism Department of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir in year 2009, and the tenders for abovementioned scheme were advertised in newspaper and were processed by the non-technical officer of the Tourism Department without involving the petitioner and on the recommendation of non-technical officers the work was awarded to "Mumtaz Builders" vide agreement dated 24.04.2008. As per agreement, the project was designed and supervised by the consulting firm "Allied Engineering Consultants". During construction, the petitioner visited the site and various defects were pointed out and in this regard numbers of reports of embezzlements were submitted before the concerned authorities. It is stated that on these reports, an inquiry committ ee was constituted under the chairmanship of SE PWD Building Circle Rawalakot whereby it has been held that contractor Mumtaz and other officials of the department were involved in making (illegal) payments and responsible for irregularities. It is contended that in presence of first said inquiry report: The second inquiry was ordered without lawful authority and any disciplinary or criminal against the petitioner in the light of previous inquiry report is not warranted by law.
Finally , the petitioner prayed that inquiry report dated 14.04.2016 and notification dated 19.05.2016, to the extent of clause (iv) and till the disposal of representation of the petitioner , initiating of criminal proceedings by Respondent No, 5 or colorful exercise of the respondent just to humiliate, jeopardize the petitioner's career , conspiracy based on misconceived facts are liable to be set aside.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents were not competent to initiate disciplinary or any criminal proceedings against the petitioner , when there is no allegation in the inquiry report against him. Mrs. Bilqees Rasheed Minhas, advocate for the petitioner further argued that the impugned notification was issued without providing any opportunity of heari ng to the petitioner which is not warranted by law. She referred the ruling reported as 1992 SCR 214.
4. Conversely Muhammad Latif Khan, D.C.P . Ehtesab Bureau, while controve rting the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner being SDO in the department was discharging supervisory responsibility of the project (Toli Pir Hill Resort) and he has not discharge his responsibility properly and misused the official authority and caused the loss of millions of rupees to the department and the impugned notification was rightly issued and no final adverse order has been passed against the petitioner and there is no legal bar for initiating disciplinary or criminal proceedings against the petitioner .
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case with utmost care.
6. It is evident from the record that vide notification dated 19.05.2016, the Prime Minster of Azad Jammu and Kashmir has ordered that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the petitioner who was then incharge in tourism department, in connection with the relevant project (Toli Pir Hill Resort). The learned counsel for petitioner could not refer any statutory provision of law, whereby such disciplinary proceedings is prohibited against the public functionaries. The law is well settled on the point that no such inquiry can be stopped or investigation can be halted by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 44 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Act, 1974. No final adverse order has been passed against the petitioner , he would have a full opportunity to put forth his version .before the concerned authorit ies and for that matter Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau, so, in presence of such alternate remedy , he is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant writ petition. My this view , finds support from the case law reported as:--
(i) 2015 SCR 837;
(ii) 2001 SCR 447;
(iii) 2012 PLC(CS) 1366;
(iv) 2003 SCMR 60;
(v) 2004 SCMR 149 ;
7. As for as the contention of the learned counsel that without hearing the petitioner impugned notification was issued, in my view, an opportunity of hearing is provided at that time when any adverse order is passed against a person and before passing such order an opportunity of hearing is provided. In the present case, only the notification has been issued, whereby , it has been ordered that proceedings shall be initiated against him. The competent authority can pass such order upon any complaint or in presence of suf ficient material.
8. As for as the arguments of the learned counsel that initial , inquiry of facts findings committee does not mention anything about the petitioner is concerne d, it is also irrelevant due to the reason that it is not necessary that one can be convicted or penalized 'only on the basis of one document, it would be seen by the concerned authority whether any other sufficient material is available against the petitioner and if the, material is available against the petitioner then there would be no legal bar to proceed against him. The authority referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable due to its distinguishable facts.
Therefore, in the light of what has been stated, finding no force in this writ petition, it is hereby dismissed in limine .