' K.A.GHANI J.--The petitioner a Civil Judge and F.C.M. (under suspension) has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of 1973 read with Article 9 of P.C.O. of 1981. He seeks reliefs that the charge-sheet dated 12th March, 1978 served upon him by the then acting Chief Justice/Authorized Officer (Mr.Justice Agha Ali Haider) and the notice (Annexure "H") dated 1st December, 1982 directing the petitioner to appear before the Honorable Chief Justice/Authorized Officer for personal hearing on 18th December, 1982 to show cause why the punishment of dismissal from service may not be imposed upon him and all subsequent proceedings being null, void, and mala fide and all actions in pursuance thereof issued or taken, be declared as without lawful authority, of no legal effect and having no legal sanctity in the eyes of law. He has also prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondent No,2 (the Martial Law Administrator, Zone "C") and the Authorized Officer (the Acting Chief Justice/the respondent No,3) to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith and pay him the salaries and all the allowances from 2-9-1979 the date of his dismissal from service.
' The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of injunction restraining the respondent No,2/the Martial Law Administrator, Zone "C" from dismissing him from the service and imposing any penalty upon him.
2. The facts, relevant for the purposes of disposal of this case may briefly be stated as follows:- ' On 12th March, 1978, the impugned charge-sheet (accompanied by statement of allegations) was issued to the petitioner by the then Acting Chief Justice/Authorized Officer, to which he submitted his explanation denying all the charges as- incorrect, false and baseless etc. The proceedings thereafter took place against the petitioner which for the purposes of disposal of this case may not be narrated, suffice would it be to state that an Inquiry Officer was appointed who recorded statements of witnesses and submitted his report to the Authorized Officer with recommendation of awarding one of the major penalties. On 2nd September, 1979 notification of the dismissal of the petitioner from service with immediate effect was issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Sind. Review petition was then filed by the petitioner on 30th September, 1979. As the relevant authority did not pass any order on it within 90 days. Service Appeal No,7/1980 under the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 was filed on Z2-1-1980, which was however, dismissed by the Sind Services Tribunal on 3rd April, 1980 in liming as barred by time. The petitioner applied for "leave to appeal which was granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petition was converted into Civil Appeal No,K-77/1981. It appears that the Honorable Supreme Court by Judgment passed on 3-2- 1982 upheld the petitioner's plea that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal was not barred by time. Thus, while setting aside the order dated 3-4-1980, the case was remanded to the Sind Services Tribunal at Karachi for disposal on merits.
3. After the case was received on remand, the Services Tribunal allowed the petitioner's appeal and the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service was set aside, on the ground (as stated by the counsel) that the petitioner was not given a second show-cause notice. It appears that the charge-sheet and other proceedings however were not interfered with, and the question of payment of arrears of salary and allowances to the petitioner was deferred pending completion of the further proceed ings by the relevant authority. The petitioner in the circumstances filed C.P.S.L.A.No,K-328 of 1982 in the Supreme Court of Pakistan for grant of leave to appeal against the order of services Tribunal whereby the question of payment of arrears and allowances was deferred. The Honorable Supreme Court refused to grant the leave and the above-mentioned petition was dismissed in limine with the observation that the matter is still sub judice and not finally decided.
4. It appears that pursuant to the order of Services Tribunal the petitioner was reinstated in the service on 21-11-1982 but by another order passed on the same date, the respondent No,3/the authorized officer suspended him. The order of suspension has been produced as Annexure "C" to the petition. It is signed by Mr. Justice Abdul Hayee Qureshi "the Authorized Officer and Acting Chief Justice".
' Thereafter, by notice dated 1-12-1982 (which was accompanied with copies of the inquiry report and recommendations) the petitioner was directed to appear before the Honorable Chief Justice/the Authorized Officer for personal hearing on 18-12-1982 and to show cause why the punishment of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him, According to the petitioner pursuant to the show-cause notice given to him as above, he appeared before the Honorable Chief Justice when he was directed to submit his explanation in writing before 15-1-1083, which he submitted on 11-1-1983 (Annexure "I" to the petition).
5. Before any further action was taken or order could be passed the petitioner moved this constitutional petition seeking reliefs which have been mentioned in para 1 above.
6. Mr. Muhammad Hatif Khudai Ansari, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged before us the following grounds:-
(a) That the charge-sheet, dated 12-3-1978 was not given by the duly authorized officer.
(b) That the inquiry officer had not conducted the inquiry in accordance with the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973.
(c) That the petitioner is under suspension continuously since 21-11-1982 which is contrary to the rules.
' The learned counsel placed reliance on the order, dated 16-4-1979, passed in C.P.S,L.A.No,K- 209/1978 SuHui Hag Hashimi v, Government of Sind and others in which leave to appeal was granted as it was found that the questions raised therein required further examination. He also relied upon the case Nazir Ahmed v. Election Tribunal etc. PLD 1983 Lah. 76 in support of the plea that a thing which was required to be done in a manner prescribed should be done in that manner and not in any other manner.
7. We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and find that this petition is liable to be dismissed for more than one reason but we would confine ourselves on the preliminary question that no case for invoking discretionary constitutional jurisdiction against a mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice, in the circumstances, has been made out.
Fragmentation of proceedings and piecemeal decisions on pleas of jurisdictional nature and similar matters are not permissible. The petitioner may adopt such legal remedies as might be available to him when the final order is passed.
8. It may be observed that we have deliberately restrained ourselves from going into other questions, as any observation made by us while disposing of this petition may not prejudice the case of the petitioner, which is pending for decision.
9. For reasons discussed above we are of the opinion that this petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
' The above are the reasons for the short order dismissing the petition in limine which was passed by us on 20th March, 1984.