1. JUDGMENTIHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHARY, J.--The petitioner through this constitutional writ petition has prayed for a declaration that orders dated21.10.1989 and 31.10.1989 passed by the respondent are illegal and without jurisdiction.2. The facts giving rise to the petition are that the petitioner is serving as a Teacher and posted in Government High School Chakar-ala, District Mianwali. The petitioner was found absent from duly with effect from 28.8.1989 to 5.9.1989, therefore, the respondent No.3 directed District Education Officer (Male), Mianwali to suspend the petitioner and initiate the proceedings against him under Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules. The said officer failed to act as directed, therefore, the respondent No.3 himself suspended the petitioner. The orders arerespectively dated 21.10.1989 and 31.10.1989 and the same are subject matter of this constitutional petition. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents who have contested the petition.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that in-fact the petitioner was not absent from duty. He has explained that two of the vigilators who were to superwise the Secondary School Examination absented from duty, therefore,, the Centre, Superintendent requested the Headmaster of the pelitioner to allow him to do this duty. The permission was granted. The request and order passed thereon appended as Annexures "B" with this petition. The pelitioner in this behalf has also relied on the report submitted by respondent No.4.3. It is maintained that the petitioner brought the illegal acts of the respondent No.2 to public notice, therefore, he became enimical towards him and the whole action against him is motivated by mala fides. The arguments are concluded with the submission that the respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to pass this suspension order.4. On the other hand, Rana Mohammad Arshad A.A.G, has submitted that the petitioner was asked to act as invigilator only Yor one day.
2. There is no explanation for the remaining period. The learned AtA.G. In this behalf has referred to annexures R.12 and R.13. It is submitted that the report of respondent No.4 is a clear indication that he was illegally protecting the petitioner and Government has been moved disciplinary proceedings against him. It is added that since the respondent No.4 illegally refused to pass this order of suspension, therefore, the respondent No.3 being appellate authority had to pass the same.5. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of both the sides. The petitioner has been suspended by respondent No.3, who is his appellate authority in case suspension, reduction in rank etc as per Item viii (b) of the West Pakistan Education Department deligetion of powers rules, 1962. The learned AA..G has submitted that since the respondent No.4 failed to pass the suspension order therefore, the appellate authority i.e. Respondent No.3 acting under note 3 to rule 16.1. Of Civil Servics Rules (Punjab) Volume-I, proceeded to pass the impugned order.4. The suspension is only on interim measures. The petitioner raises disputed question of facts, which can only be decided after redcording the evidence. This is definitely beyond this scope of constitutional proceedings. Even otherwise any finding by this court at this stage will prejudice either of the parties on the one hand or on the other hand it will pre-empt the jurisdiction of departmental authorities as well as Punjab Service Tribunal. This is not object of law.6. The result is that there is no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs and the respondent No.3 is directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within 3 months.