ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR, J. The instant writ petition is arising out of the Notification dated 25.08.2014, whereby major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner .
2. It is significant to note down the contents of the Notification ibid which reads as under:- "As a result of proceedings held under the International Islamic University Efficiency & Discipline Statutes, 2006, Mr. Umer Farooq, Lecturer/Research Associate, Islamic Research Institute IIUI has been found guilty of misconduct .
2. On the recommendations of the Authorized Officer to impose major penalty of "Dismissal from Service" under Section 4(1)(b)(iv) of IIU Efficiency & Discipline Statutes, the President IIUI/Authority has approved dismissal of the services of Mr. Umer Farooq, Lecturer/Research Associate, Islamic Research Institute, IIUI with effect from 25.08.2014. He will severe all connections with the IIUI."
3. The departmental proceedings were conducted against the petitioner (Lecturer/Research Associate, IIU) under the International Islamic University Efficiency & Discipline Statutes, 2006, on the allegations of misconduct? and pursuant thereto, major penalty of dismis sal from service was imposed upon him in terms of Section 4(1)(b)(iv) of IIU Ef ficiency & Discipline Statutes, 2006.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-IIU questioned the maintainability of the instant writ petition on two grounds i.e. petition in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable against the respondent-IIU being not falling within the definition of " person " and that alternate remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner .
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner repelled the above submissions and prays for disposal of the instant writ petition on merits as, according to the learned counsel, the impugned action was in disregard to the settled principles of natural justice; that the impugned notification had been issued by an incompetent authority; that no regular inquiry was conducted; that the petitioner had been deprived the right to defence and that opportunity of personal hearing was also not afforded to the petitioner.
6. Heard, record examined.
7. As regards maintainability of the instant writ petition against the respondent-IIU, this Court earlier in the case of "Shahjahan Azhar v . International Islamic University & 3 others" (WP No. 804 of 2014) answered the objection in affirmative by placing reliance upon the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Shumaila Sajjad v Higher Education Commission and others (2020 PLC (CS) 796 Islamabad) and the view expressed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Intra Court Appeal No. 341 of 2021 Dilshad Versus International Islamic University through its Rector , Islamabad and 2 others.' .
8. It is settled law that when a petition is dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability, the merits of the case should not be discussed, however, it is noticed that the remedy of appeal Section 38 of the IIU Ordinance, 1985, is available to the petitioner. For ease of reference, Section 38 is reproduced hereunder:- "38. Appeal to, and review by, the Board of Governors. (1) Where an order is passed punishing any officer (other than President). Teacher or other employee of the University or altering or interpreting to his disadvantage the prescribed terms or conditions of his service, he shall, where the order is passed by the President or any other officer or Teacher of the University , have the right to appeal to the Board of Governors, against the order , and, where the order is made by the Board have the right to apply to that Authority for review of that order .
(2) The appeal or application for review shall be subject to the President who shall lay it before the Board of Governors with his views."
9. In view of above, instant writ petition is held to be not maintainable while petitioner also retains alternate efficacious remedy of appeal against the impugned action. Consequently , instant writ petition is accordingly dismissed .