1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The petitioner Abdul Khaliq Bangash is aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan; Peshawar Bench, dismissing his writ petition, whereby he has challenged the legality of a departmental inquiry instituted against him and the order of his suspension from service, pending the inquiry. The facts are as follows:- The petitioner was serving as an Inspector in the Co-operative Department of the Government of West Pakistan. On 19-9-1957, a case under section 409, P. P. C. Was registered against him on allegations of embezzlement of the funds of some of the co--operative societies. Criminal cases as well as a departmental inquiry, were instituted against him and, as a sequel, he was sus--pended from service with effect from the 21st of September 1957. The criminal cases ended in his acquittal.
2. Departmentally, he was served with a charge-sheet by the Deputy Registrar, Co--operative Societies, Peshawar, on the 8th of October 1957. In the inquiry that followed, he was found guilty and dismissed from service by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, on the 18th of January 1960.
3. An appeal preferred by him to the Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan, Co-operative Societies, Lahore (respondent No. 1 herein), was accepted on the ground that the Deputy Registrar not being the competent authority to serve the charge-sheet on him, the entire proceedings in pursuance of the illegal charge-sheet were vitiated. Respon--dent No. 1, at the same time, ordered that "In case it is still intended to proceed against the official, he could be served with a fresh charge-sheet under the signatures of the Registrar and the matter proceeded according to law".
4. The Registrar served a fresh charge-sheet on the petitioner on the 20th of October 1962. In reply, the petitioner challenged the fresh departmental inquiry as illegal. This objection was turned down and the Assistant Registrar, Mardan, Mr. Manzur Ahmad Sethi, was appointed to hold the inquiry.
5. The order of the petitioner's suspension initially made by the Deputy Registrar was also validated by the Registrar on the 21st of August 1965.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not questioned the legality of the second departmental inquiry and evidently no objection can be validly urged against it. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suspension of the petitioner till the time of its validation by the Registrar on the 21st of August 1965, should be held to be without lawful authority. We do not see any substance in the point. Assuming that his initial suspension was not in order, at the most, he can make a claim for the balance of his unpaid salary for that period, which cannot b., enforced through writ jurisdiction. It was held by this Court in the case of Mian Muhammad Hayat v. The Province of West Pakistan (PLD 1964 SC 321) that the order of suspension is not a penalty and it does not violate any legal right vesting in the suspended officer. The petitioner continues to remain in service in spite of his suspension and if he is ultimately exonerated in the inquiry, he can be re- instated and paid all the arrears of his salary that may be found due to him. The view of the High Court does not warrant interference.
7. The petition is dismissed.