1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 11-4-1994 passed in Writ Petition No, 1629 of 1994.
2. ' The relevant facts of the case are that the services of the petitioner, who was serving as Sanitary Attendant with Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, Multan, were terminated on 25-1-1993 as a result of departmental enquiry conducted against him. The petitioner challenged his termination before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment. The learned Judge in Chambers while dismissing the petitioner expressed doubt whether firstly the remedy under Article 199 of the Constitution 1973 was at all available to the petitioner in the circumstances of the case. It was also found by the learned Judge that a regular enquiry was conducted against the petitioner before terminating his services and there was absolutely no infirmity in the proceedings of the enquiry conducted against the petitioner.
3. ' In seeking leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the services of the petitioner were governed under the statutory rules, namely Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, application whereof was extended to the employees of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission by virtue of service regulations framed under section 20 of Pakistan Atomic Energy Ordinance, 1965. It is contended by the learned counsel that since the services of the petitioner were governed under statutory rules, the writ petition before the High Court was maintainable to challenge the termination of services if the same was not in accordance with the provisions of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. From the writ petition filed by the petitioner to challenge his termination, it is quite clear that specific ground was taken that the Enquiry Officer neither recorded any evidence nor he was given any opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses. It was also contended that he was not given charge-sheet before the enquiry was conducted against him. From the enquiry report, which is on file, it does not appear whether any evidence was recorded by the Enquiry Officer in presence of the petitioner or that he was allowed participation in the enquiry before his services were terminated on the basis of enquiry report. The enquiry conducted against the petitioner prima facie, appears to be not in accordance with the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. We, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the above contentions of the petitioner.