' The Writ Petitions Nos.7331, 7532, 7533 and 7534 of 1989 raise common question of law and fact, therefore, are being disposed of through this single judgment.
2. The petitioners through these Constitutional petitions have prayed for that demand of Rs,49,766.08 made by the respondent through notices dated 7-11-1989 be declared illegal, without jurisdiction, void and unwarranted. The background of the matter is that a shortage of sugar stock valuing Rs,3,48,362.50 was detected in the Gulberg godown. The Department on the one hand got a case registered against the petitioners and others under section 411, P.P.C. But since the P.Ws. Did not support the prosecution version, therefore, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused under section 249-A of the Cr.P.C. Vide judgment dated 4-4-1987.
3. On the other hand, the petitioners and Muhammad Yasin Bhatti, Incharge of the godown were proceeded against under E&D Rules. So far as Muhammad Yasin Bhatti is concerned a penalty of stoppage of increments and recovery of the amount of the loss suffered by the Government on account of alleged theft of the sugar was imposed. The said Muhammad Yasin Bhatti filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The appeal was partially allowed vide order dated 14-1- 1986. The result was that a penalty of stoppage of increments was upheld while the penalty of recovery of the amount of loss suffered by the Government was set aside. The Government filed a petition being C.P. No,408 of 1986 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal. This petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 17-1-1988 and order of the Tribunal was confirmed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the petition of the Government noted following findings of the Tribunal:- "Keeping in view the above detailed analysis of the case, I have no hesitation in holding that the appellant is not at all responsible for the shortage/loss of sugar so attributed to him as this loss has not been proved and established against the appellant; rather it has been established and proved against the chawkidars alone who were involved in the theft case of this sugar and have ultimately been punished by the competent authority i,e,, District Food Controller (R), Lahore also the Authorised Officer in the case of appellant."
' It seems that the respondent after receipt of the copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided to enforce the recovery of the loss against the petitioners. It accordingly proceeded to issue the impugned show-cause notice dated 7-11-1989 to the petitioners and others. The relevant portion of the notice reads as under:- "Subject: NOTICE FOR RECOVERY OF GOVT. LOSS, ' According to the judgment dated 17-1-1988, learned Supreme Court of Pakistan announced in case of Civil Petition No,408 of '1986, you have been held responsible for the Govt. Loss involved in the theft case of sugar at Gulberg P.R. Centre where you were posted for Watch and Ward of Govt.
Stocks.
' Keeping in view of the above judgment of learned Supreme Court of Pakistan, you are hereby served with this Notice to make good the Govt. Loss of Rs,3,48,362.50 and deposit a sum of Rs,49,766.08 of your equal share into Govt. Treasury under proper head of account within one week of the receipt of this notice positively, failing which the case will be referred to the Collector for recovery as arrears of Land Revenue."
' It is this notice which has been assailed in all these writ petitions
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Farooq Bedar, Additional Advocate-General on behalf of the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been saddled with the liability without any basis. It is maintained that the Hon'ble Supreme Court nowhere held the petitioners liable for loss.
5. The learned Additional Advocate-General has raised a preliminary objection as to the competency of these writ petitions. It is submitted that the writs are infact directed against the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17-1-1988 upholding the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 14-1-1986, which cannot be assailed in this Court. It is added that the petitioners have only two remedies. They could have either filed an appeal against the order of the Tribunal dated 14-1-1986 or sought review of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17-1-1988.
The learned Additional Advocate-General submitted that the findings recorded by the Punjab Service Tribunal have been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same cannot be made subject-matter of a Constitutional petition directly or indirectly. It is added that even the findings of the Punjab Service Tribunal cannot be made subject-matter of Constitutional petition in view of the Article 212 of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
6. It have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the liability has been worked out without basis and justification. I am afraid that this petition is utterly misconceived. The impugned notices are based on findings recorded by the Tribunal and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere in the matter. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no basis especially after the petitioners were acquitted of the criminal charge, to impose the recovery on them. On the other hand, Tribunal has clearly held them liable. This is not all. This order of the Punjab Service Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, it is not possible to attend to the grievance of the petitioners without touching the merits of the order of the Tribunal. This is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.
The preliminary objection, therefore, prevails.
7. The result is that the petitions are not competent. The same are dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.