' Petitioner an in-service employee of Evacuee Trust Property Board challenges the correctness of order, dated 7-6-1981 of Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan, ordering his re-instatement to his 'substantive post of Inspector and keeping him on special report for two years before he could be considered for any further promotion. This constitutional petition arises in the following circumstances:- "The petitioner was holding the post of an Inspector when he was promoted, to hold the post, of an Assistant Administrator Evacuee Trust Property Board purely on ad hoc basis subject to approval by the Federal. Government. Petitioner was charge-sheeted for misconduct by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, vide charge-sheet, dated 14-6-1980 (Annexure 'A'). Misconduct attributed to- the petitioner was subject-matter of an inquiry by the Enquiry Officer. Charges Nos.1 and 3 were found proved against the petitioner whereas in respect of the remaining, he was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer. The Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board vide ,order dated 17-11-1982 ordered removal of the petitioner from the service of the trust and the final comments of the Administrator, ETP(SZ), Karachi regarding his initial complaint against the petitioner, it is my view that Mr.Manzoor Hussain should have been awarded a minor penalty of censure instead of a major penalty of termination of service. This course of action was also appropriate in view of his good service record which is evident from his A A.C.R. dossier. I, therefore, order that Mr. Manzoor Hussain be re-instated in service on his substantive post of Inspector and he be kept on special report for two years before he can be considered for any promotion."
' The petitioner is stated to have voiced his grievances/ representations to the respondents but finding no redress he has convassed the impugned order in constitutional jurisdiction through the instant writ petition, to declare the same, to have been passed without lawful authority.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.. Learned counsel has reiterated all the facts detailed in the writ petition and contended that the petitioner could not have been removed from service as a measure of punishment by respondent No.3, Chairman Evacuee Property Trust Board because, the competent authority in this behalf was Secretary-respondent No.2. Secondly it was contended that there was no evidence before the Enquiry Officer to hold that 'the relevant charges Nos.1 and 3 'stood proved against the petitioner. Thirdly it was stated that the re-instatement' of the petitioner to the post of Inspector from Assistant Administrator tantamounted to his reversion which was a major penalty. The proposed penalty. ran in conflict with the earlier observations of the Secretary/respondent wherein it was observed that the case called for a minor penalty of "censure". It is admitted by learned counsel that the petitioner was promoted purely- on ad hoc basis subject to the approval by the Federal Government. Necessary approval admittedly, has not been accorded so far by the Government. In this background, the petitioner's substantive post was that of an Inspector in respect of which the Chairman alone was competent authority. The impugned order imposing the major penalty was passed, therefore, by the competent authority. In revision, the Secretary to Government of Pakistan modified the order and instead of removing the petitioner from service ordered his. re-instatement as Inspector, his substantive post. It was further ordered that the petitioner be kept on special report for two years before he was considered for promotion. Necessary formalities required by law in regard to the service of charge-sheet, holding of an inquiry, service of a final show-cause notice have all been duly complied with by the relevant authorities. There is an genuine complaint that the petitioner was not, afforded .any opportunity of hearing and, leading defence. Whether there was sufficient evident before the Enquiry Officer to hold charges proved is not a matter for re-examination by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. Quantum of punishment to be awarded to the delinquent official i again a matter falling within the domain of the departmental authorities. At least it was not suggested that the case was of "no evidence". The petitioner was promoted as an ad hoc arrangement subject the approval of the Central Government. Unless the necessary approval was there, the petitioner could not in law claim the post of Assistant Administrator as a matter of strict legal right and that too when it was an ad hoc appointment. Therefore, I do not find that respondent No.2 has committed any illegality in ordering the petitioner's re-instatement on. his substantive post. The order evidently went in favour of the writ petitioner. The penalty for removal of service was converted into the one ordering his re-instatement on a substantive post. I do not think the Secretary has committed any illegality in making the impugned order. The petition, therefore, fails for 'want of merit and is dismissed in limine.