1. Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenge has been made to the method in which the Inquiry Officer in case of the disciplinary action initiated against petitioner--Fayyaz Baig, a Motor Vehicle Examiner in District Narowal, is being conducted under the orders of the Authorised Officer constituted by the "Authority"/ Chairman, Punjab Provincial Transport Authority, Lahore as per latter's direction under Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, hereinafter referred to the Rules. The prayer clause in this petition is couched in the following terms: "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that an order may kindly be issued to the respondent No. 2 to depute a prejudicial officer to hold the inquiry of the petitioner so that he can get due justice.
2. It is, further prayed that the respondent No. 1 may kindly be ordered not to announce any findings on the inquiry on 7-12-1993."
3. The case of the petitioner is that during the currency of the inquiry proceedings before Hafiz Muhammad Yousaf, Inquiry Officer/A.C., Mandi Bahauddin he was not allowed to examine all the witnesses in his defence although a list in that regard had been supplied by him as required under the relevant Rules. The petitioner also was driven to submit an application before the Transport Minister for transfer of the inquiry from the said Inquiry Officer and even the order passed by the concerned Minister on the said application on 24-11-1993 was not implemented by the respondent- Secretary Transport. The prayer of the petitioner before respondent No.1/Inquiry Officer to stop further proceedings in the light of the order of the Minister dated 24-11-1993, was not attended to by him and he has fixed the case for announcement of his orders today, the 7th of December, 1993.
2. Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Lali, learned counsel for the petitioner, tried to argue the case of the petitioner from the point of view of the mala fides, allegedly involved in the case and the fear of the petitioner that he will not get even-handed justice at the hands of both the Inquiry Officer/respondent No.1, and the Authorised Officer/Secretary Transport/respondent No.2. When the attention of the learned counsel was drawn to the admitted position that the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer are being conducted under rule 7 of the Rules and that too with a view to submitting a "report of his findings " to the "Authorised Officer" and asked to argue how this petition is competent at this 'stage in that neither any final order has been passed in relation to the petitioner by any of the respondents nor the allegation that the prosecution have failed to collect requisite material to proceed in the cause against him which `fact' does not prejudice the case of the petitioner in that it may favour him at the level of the "Authorised Officer" while concluding the cause of the petitioner under the Rules, he was content with arguing that the petitioner has a genuine fear that even lack of evidence will not stand in the way of the highly doubtful whether the petitioner can maintain such a petition when no tax is being recovered from him.
4. Dismissed in limine.