No Advocate has appeared on behalf of Water and Sanitation Agency to assist the Court for resolving the question involved in this writ petition. I have, therefore, requested Mr. Farooq Zaman Advocate, to appear and assist the Court on question involved in the petition on behalf of Water and Sanitation Agency. In this background, WASH is directed to pay Rs. 1,100 to Mr. Farooq Zaman Advocate, for rendering services in this case, I have also summoned Mr. Muhammad Zar, Director Administration to assist the Court. He has given an undertaking to pay the counsel's fee to Mr. Farooq Zaman, Advocate, within a week.
2. This writ petition has been filed to challenge the validity of the order; dated 11th May, 1971, by the Chairman, Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore, and the order dated 22nd October, 1970, passed by the Project Director Greater Lahore Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage, Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore, in consequence of which the peti--tioner was removed from the service of the Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore, as ant overseer.
3. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as an overseer by the Chairman, Lahore Municipal Corporation, Lahore, in the year 1962. However, after the promulgation of the Greater Lahore Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage Ordinance, 1967, the services of the petitioner was transfer--red to the Lahore Improvement Trust to work in Greater Lahore Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage Project. Some complaints were received against the petitioner accusing him of shortfall of certain stores. In consequence, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by Respondent No. 2 and after the completion of the pro-- ceedings, the petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 22nd October, 1970, passed by the Project Director of the Greater Lahore Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage Project of the Lahore Improve--ment Trust, Lahore, inasmuch as, according to the order, in question, it had been proved on record after carefully considering the report of the Enquiry Officer that the charges of inefficiency and corruption against the petitioner stood established. The petitioner was given a show-cause notice and a chance of personal hearing but he could not substantiate his points. In consequence, he was relieved of his duties immediately as is stated in the impugned order dated 22nd October, 1970 (Annexure "L";. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, filed an appeal before the Chairman, Lahore Improvement Trust. The memorandum of appeal is at Annexure ''M". The appeal was also dismissed by the Chairman, Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore, vide his order, dated 5th November, 1971 (Annexure N). According to the impugned order, the petitioner only took two-fold objections in support of his appeal. Firstly, that he was not intimated as to the nature of the penalty to be imposed and secondly, that after the closing of the inquiry certain facts were not taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer. The defence taken by the petitioner was repelled by the learned Chairman, Lahore Improvement Trust by giving a finding of fact that he was served with a show-cause notice in which it was clearly mentioned that .He could be awarded a major penalty under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The second objection was also repelled with the remarks that the petitioner was required to produce all the relevant evidence before the conclusion of the inquiry and that according to the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was inefficient and had shown a tendency to be corrupt and in these circumstances, he found no justification in interfering with the order of the Project Director and the appeal was accordingly dismissed. I may be pointed out that in the memorandum of appeal, the petitioner never raised any objection with regard to the competency of the punishing authority. He only contested the case on the aforesaid two grounds which were repelled, by the Chairman.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the impugned order on the following grounds :-
(a) That the Project Director was not competent to take disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and that it was only the Chairman, Lahore Municipal Corporation, Lahore, who was the appointing authority of the petitioner as required by rule 12 of the West Pakistan Municipal Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973.
(b) That the provisions of section 4 (1) (c) of Greater Lahore Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage Ordinance, 1967, did not authorise the Respondent No. 2 to take any disciplinary action against the petitioner who was an employee of the Lahore Municipal Corporation, Lahore.
(c) That the West Pakistan Ordinance XXXVII of 1969 so far as it seeks alter the terms and conditions of the service of the peti--tioner, is invalid.
(d) That the delegation of power, if any, made by the Chairman, Lahore Improvement Trust to Respondent No. 2, to take disciplinary action against the employees of the Lahore Municipal Corporation, is illegal and is not authorised by the provisions of Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, nor by the Provisions of Greater Lahore Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage Ordinance, 1967, The questions raised in the writ petition were never urged and pressed before the appellate authority or during the course of inquiry proceedings. On this short ground alone, the petitioner is not entitled to raise these questions for the first time in writ jurisdiction which is discretionary in nature. The petitioner has been removed from service and a finding of fact has been given against him that he has shown a tendency to be corrupt and therefore, I find no justification to interfere with the impugned order. The petitioner is, therefore, estopped by his conduct to raise these questions for the first time in writ petition. There is ample authority on, the proposition of law that a writ petition' even against void order is liable to be dismissed if the petitioner is estopped by his conduct to challenge the same or he has acquiesced in the proceedings before the Tribunal.
Reference may be made to S. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi v. The Chairman, Screening Committee, Lahore (1978 SCMR 367).
5. According to the report of the Administrative Officer, Chairman, Lahore Improvement Trust, which has been placed on record, the Project Director was competent to proceed against the accused to impose a penalty on him in light of the powers delegated to him vide item No. 2 of the Schedule of powers notified vide No. Admn/00,00/2; 6190, dated 12th April, 1969, by the Chairman, read with order No. Admn/1256 dated 25th April, 1970 (Annexures Nos. III and IV to the Report). It is further stated in the report that the provisions of section 4 (i) (c) of the Greater Lahore Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage Ordi--nance No. UU of 1967; as amended vide West Pakistan Greater Lahore Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage Ordinance No. XXXVII of 1969, authorise the Chairman, Lahore Improvement Trust to exercise the powers of Chairman, Lahore Municipal Corporation, Lahore. Section 5 (4) of the Ordinance, as amended vide Ordinance of 1969, authorises the Chairman, Lahore Improvement Trust, to delegate his powers, to the Project Director or any other Officer of the Scheme to exercise his powers. Hence, the orders passed by the Project Director were passed by the appointing authority and not by the authority subordinate to the appointing authority.
6. Be that as it may, and without going into the question of law raised for the first time in the writ petition, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground alone, in that, these points were never urged by the petitioner either during the course of disciplinary proceed--ings or before the appellate authority or in the memorandum of appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has very frankly con--ceded that he is raising these questions of law for the first time.
The writ jurisdiction being discretionary, the petitioner has already teen removed from service and I am therefore, not inclined to allow the petitioner to raise these questions for the first time as an unwilling master cannot be forced to re-instate the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as it would have the effect of disturbing the administrative arrangement of WASA. On the factual plan the impugned order is based on cogent grounds and the finding of fact arrived at by the departmental authorities cannot be interfered with in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.